Putin’s grand scheme bommerangs back to hit U.S. politics

Via-My article in The Brenner Brief

Putin’s grand scheme dividing his biggest threat,the GOP

CREDIT: Wiki Commons

As the Ukraine situation devolves into an uncertain future it is having the effect of clarifying the U.S.  domestic political picture. By highlighting the Republican Party’s divide on future American foreign policy, Russia’s intervention into Ukraine has pit two strong elements of the GOP coalition against one another.

The two factions, the so-called neocons who have in the past held great sway over Republican Party policy and politics and the rising power within the GOP of the more libertarian elements on the right, have not as yet reached a means for peaceful coexistence and the Ukrainian crisis highlights this divide.  Unlike the schism which has been created between the “establishment” and the grassroots “Tea Party” element of the GOP this foreign policy divide cuts across all elements of the Republican Party landscape. In 2010 as the Tea Party swept the Republicans into power in the House it was also primarily responsible for sending two of the GOP’s rising stars to the U.S. Senate, Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul from Kentucky.  Although Rubio’s light has dimmed somewhat with the grassroots due to his foray into the immigration quagmire, he is still seen by most on the right as an articulate spokesman for individual freedom and a champion for constitutional conservatism.  Rand Paul has spent much time and effort in an attempt to reach out and draw new constituencies into the GOP fold, primarily the youth, which he hopes to attract to his libertarian philosophies and principles.  Both Senators are considered not only to be rising stars in the Republican Party, but also potential 2016 presidential candidates. These two “Tea Party” senators though have vastly different views on the Ukrainian situation. Rubio put out a Press Release on the crisiswhere among other points he recommended:

…. We should also stand with Ukraine as the interim government attempts to deal with these provocations. This includes immediately providing the lethal assistance they requested weeks ago. We also need to take measures to reassure our allies in Central and Eastern Europe by deploying more alliance assets to their territories to reinforce our NATO commitments to their security.

Rubio’s statements on and prescriptions  for the Ukrainian situation virtually mirror those of Senator John McCain (R-AZ) perhaps this generationsleading spokesman for the neocon viewpoint. Given his background as the son of Cuban immigrants, it is not surprising that he would have a more aggressive stance on  international matters  as it relates to foreign tyrants.  When  Senator Tom Harkins (D-IA)  recently took to the Senate floor and gave a speech praising the Cuban healthcare system, Rubio responded with an  impassioned and well received rebuttal showing not only his gifts as an orator but his sincere passion in regards to tyrannical foreign regimes. At the same time that Rubio is promoting the Right’s typical response to foreign interventions and bullying by tyrants such as Putin, Rand Paul is counselling what for the GOP is a new direction in foreign policy. Paul has put out only one press release on Ukraine, which in itself is telling, and that was back on February 28, 2014.  In the statement the Kentucky Senator took a more “internationalist” tone calling on the Russians to remember “that stability and territorial integrity go hand in hand with prosperity.” Since his initial formal response, Paul has made statements that indicate that he has absolutely no desire to be drawn into what he sees as a European problem but would use every non-military tool at the United States disposal to punish Russia. In an op-ed for Time he set out what a Paul Administration would do in response to Russia’s aggression, though slightly more aggressive than the Obama Administration’s feeble response, it is far from the cold warriormentality which has dominated GOP policies for the past several decades.  Perhaps most telling in his opinion piece he attempts to remind his Tea Party base what America’s biggest enemy is, and it is not Putin:

America is a world leader, but we should not be its policeman or ATM. At the end of the day, I still agree with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen — the greatest threat to America’s security is our national debt. Russia, the Middle East or any other troubled part of the world should never make us forget that the U.S. is broke. We weaken our security and defenses when we print money out of thin air or borrow from other countries to allegedly support our own.

Two “Tea Party” Senators with different views of how the United States should proceed in what still is a hostile world in the twenty-first century.  The foreign policy debate between the factions was ongoing but under the surface of other policy matters, Putin through his aggression has just brought it to the surface. It is not that Marco Rubio does not believe in fiscal responsibility or that Rand Paul does not believe in a strong national defense both men believe in both.  What this particular schism brings to the fore of Republican politics is more about priorities and tactics than divisions.  The fact that some are attempting to paint either man as somehow not “right” enough because of their differing priorities is actually counterproductive.  both men represent views which reflect their different backgrounds and has nothing to do with either man’s commitment to the constitution or the nation. Personally I might prefer one man over the other as President, but I have no doubt that either man would lead the nation in a different and better direction than it is heading now and upon that there ought to be no debate on the right.

Obama’s policies don’t help middle class

Via-Miami Herald

BY MARCO RUBIO
RUBIO.SENATE.GOV

As President Obama arrives in Miami Friday to discuss the economy, I welcome and encourage him to visit some of South Florida’s many small businesses. Our community’s job creators would certainly discuss with him — as they often do with me all over town — how much more difficult operating a business has become in today’s economy because of the regulations and policies coming out of Washington.

President Obama should also listen to the stories of many of my neighbors to get a true sense of the effect more tax increases and spending hikes will have on our nation’s middle class. By listening to them, he would learn that many aspects of policies like Obamacare have ended up hurting many middle-class families instead of helping them. He would find that the expanding role of our government has created uncertainty by establishing rules that many small businesses can’t afford to follow.

Miami is where I learned that America’s private sector — if allowed to operate freely — is the greatest engine for prosperity and economic mobility the world has ever known. I learned this by watching my parents work hard in middle-class jobs, which existed because someone started a business and was successful enough to hire them. It was these jobs and my parents’ efforts that allowed me to live a better life than theirs. Had there been burdensome regulations or taxes on these businesses, the owners may not have been able to keep my parents on staff, or they might have reduced their hours to part-time. Either would have been devastating to our family.

Many Floridians believe these policies will only continue emanating from Washington. As a result, our economy won’t grow or produce middle class jobs because of the constant threat of trillion dollar tax hikes like the one recently approved in the Senate Democratic budget. Instead, our role in government must be to ensure that the process for starting and growing businesses is as encouraging as possible.

We can’t do this if we’re adding trillions to our national debt. The fight to reduce the debt must start by passing a balanced and responsible budget that focuses on strengthening our economy, empowering the middle class and protecting American families. I opposed the first budget produced by Senate Democrats in over four years because it is a massive bundle of tax and spending increases that even some Democrats in the Senate couldn’t support.

In Miami today, President Obama will see what really makes an economy tick. He’ll see hardworking Americans of all walks of life, including many immigrants from Latin America, the Caribbean and all parts of the world who have come here for a better life. These immigrants have been instrumental in strengthening Miami’s economy through their talents, skills and hard work. Immigration has also brought money to our city’s tourism industry, while immigrant investors have helped our real estate market begin to rebound.

But today America’s immigration system is broken. Soon my Senate colleagues and I will propose a plan that aims to bring our legal immigration system into the 21st century so that America can better compete for global talent while securing our borders.

By listening to the concerns in our community, I believe President Obama will understand even more how important a modernized immigration system is to South Florida and our nation’s economy. On this issue and so many more, I encourage President Obama to engage with those who have different ideas than him. By taking a good long look around Miami, perhaps the president will see what I’ve seen throughout my years in this city. He’ll see all the elements necessary for a thriving and prosperous economy. He’ll see a culture full of people who want to help their children become better off.

President Obama is a big basketball fan who arrives in Florida as two home state teams prepare for the chance to continue their championship quests. The president surely knows that victory in a sport comes from a coach that’s able to assess the performance of his team and alter the game plan accordingly.

Now is the time to abandon the failed game plan of tax hikes and spending increases still dominating our nation’s playbook. It’s time for President Obama and Congress to return to the fundamentals. It’s time to fix the nation’s economy by putting the ball back in the hands of the real playmakers: the hardworking Americans that drive our private economy.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/28/3311937/marco-rubio-obamas-policies-dont.html#storylink=cpy

Marco Rubio: Riding to the Immigration Rescue

Via-WSJ

Marco Rubio, Florida's GOP senator, unveils his reform ideas to 'modernize' the system and put illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship.

By MATTHEW KAMINSKI

Coral Gables, Fla.

Marco Rubio—41-year-old son of working-class Cuban exiles—has lived the upwardly mobile immigrant experience. In his fast rise, the Florida Republican has also experienced the politics of immigration. That story isn't so inspirational.

During his successful Senate campaign two years ago, an attack leaflet picturing "the Real Rubio" alongside an image of Che Guevara was sent to GOP voters. The mailer noted that Mr. Rubio championed laws in the state legislature to give children of illegal immigrants in-state tuition and health benefits. After going to Washington, he was then criticized for not doing enough on immigration reform. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus branded him "a wolf in sheep's clothing" and a Miami-based Hispanic group called him "a Benedict Arnold."

That may be mild compared to what's coming. Florida's junior senator and one of America's most prominent Hispanic politicians wants to take the Republican lead on immigration reform. Getting out front of President Obama's campaign pledge to overhaul the system in his second term, Mr. Rubio is laying out his ideas for possible legislation.

Whether Mr. Rubio is courageous or foolhardy, the outcome on Capitol Hill and the impact on his career will tell the story. Immigration has long been a profitable wedge issue for Democrats and Republicans. On Wednesday at the Biltmore Hotel near his home here, Mr. Rubio spells out a reform plan that charges up the middle.

Marco Weekly

Productive U.S.-Mexico relations should be a foreign policy priority

Via-McClathy Tribune

By SEN. MARCO RUBIO

On Saturday, Enrique Pena Nieto will take office as the new president of Mexico. I had the pleasure of meeting briefly with President-elect Pena Nieto during his short visit to the United States this week, and I am hopeful that his tenure can represent an opportunity to continue and expand on the good relations we have enjoyed with his predecessor Felipe Calderon.

Mexico's longstanding economic, social and cultural ties with the United States have always made our relations with Mexico important. However, since the inauguration of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the dramatic increase in cross-border commerce that resulted, Mexico's economy has grown to become the second largest in Latin America, and it is now the United States' third-largest commercial partner and second-largest market for U.S. exports. For 22 U.S. states, Mexico is the first- or second-largest export market.

Rubio's Weekly Message

(pass it on)

Rand vs. Rubio

Via-The American Spectator

By W. James Antle, III

The Tea Party scored its two biggest triumphs last year with the election of Sens. Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. Both were discouraged from running by leaders of their own party. Both had to overcome the determined opposition of the Republican establishment to make it through their primaries in the first place.

Paul and Rubio were both uncharacteristically honest about the need for entitlement reform, going so far as to contemplate means-testing Social Security even though they needed the votes of senior citizens. Paul was running in Kentucky, where about 60 percent of the registered voters are Democrats. Rubio stood for election in Florida, a retirement mecca.

Both won in November by double-digit margins and have pressured Republican leaders from the right on spending now that they are in office. Rubio has railed against increasing the federal government's debt ceiling. Paul has proposed his own five-year plan to balance the budget and has chastised Paul Ryan for not going far enough. Both senators voted against the budget deal struck by President Obama and House Republicans.

Their similarities stop at the water's edge. True, when Obama decided to wage "kinetic military action" against Libya, both senators recognized it for what it was -- war -- and demanded that Congress authorize the intervention. But Paul and Rubio diverged sharply from there.

In April, Paul introduced a sense of the Senate resolution affirming the following 2007 quote from then-candidate Barack Obama: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." The move so flummoxed Democrats that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid abruptly adjourned the Senate for the weekend rather than have his colleagues vote on the amendment while Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) bizarrely claimed President Bush had broken precedent by consulting Congress before going into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Senator Paul also insisted that Congress vote to formally declare war against Libya and made fairly clear he intended to vote against any such declaration. Neither of Paul's Libya proposals went anywhere. The Senate ultimately voted down his language agreeing with Obama nearly four years ago, since the Democratic majority wanted to agree with Obama today.

Rubio also proposed a resolution authorizing the use of force in Libya. But his idea was to make regime change the official policy of the U.S. government, and unlike Paul he fully intended to vote in favor. "This resolution should... state that removing Moamar Qadhafi from power is in our national interest and therefore should authorize the President to accomplish this goal," Rubio wrote in a late March letter to Reid. "To that end, the resolution should urge the President to immediately recognize the Interim Transitional National Council as the legitimate government in Libya."

Libya is just one specific example of a broader disagreement between the two Tea Party favorites over U.S. foreign policy. Paul, the son of the noninterventionist presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul, believes restraint in the resort to arms is an integral part of limited government. Rubio, the son of Cuban exiles, sees a robust foreign policy as indispensable to American world leadership.

On the campaign trail in Kentucky, Paul answered a question about issues of war and peace this way: "I think the most important thing we do with the federal government is our national defense, bar none, but then I think it's open to debate what's in our national defense." In his recent book The Tea Party Goes to Washington, Paul complained, "Many Republicans treat war like Democrats treat welfare."

In a fascinating interview with Robert Costa of National Review Online, Rubio sounded a very different note by inveighing against what he described as isolationism. "There is no replacement for America in the world," Rubio told Costa. "If America withdraws from the world stage, it will create a vacuum, and that vacuum will not be filled by someone better than us."

"It is so important that conservatism does not translate into isolationism," Rubio continued. "Isolationism has never worked for America. It is not going to work in the 21st century." Rubio's chief of staff is Cesar Conda, the former Dick Cheney aide who during the 2010 primary season fired off an email warning to Republican hawks: "On foreign policy, [global war on terror], Gitmo, Afghanistan, Rand Paul is NOT one of us."

This debate is only going to intensify after the death of Osama bin Laden. Many conservatives are likely going to look at the successful strike on the al Qaeda leader and conclude it is possible to fight terrorism without nation-building or invading and occupying countries until they are democratic. Afghanistan is hardly more a functioning democracy than when bin Laden fled a decade ago. It is unclear how sincerely our putative ally in Pakistan was really helping us search for the 9/11 murderer. Some Pakistani forces may have been sheltering bin Laden as much as the Taliban.

Still other conservatives will contend that without a U.S. military presence overseas, complemented by the intelligence gathered through enhanced interrogation, there is no way to identify and disrupt terrorist networks. "It's important that we remain vigilant in our efforts to defeat terrorist enemies and protect the American people," House Speaker John Boehner said in his post-bin Laden press conference. "This makes our engagement in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan more important not less."

Rand Paul and Marco Rubio have already established themselves as two of the most conservative members of the Senate. Rubio invokes Jesse Helms, Paul Robert Taft. They both quote Ronald Reagan. On most issues, they will be allies. On foreign policy, they couldn't be further apart.

Rubio Knows Where He's Going

Via-American Spectator

By Larry Thornberry

TAMPA -- "Marvin, what do we do now?" This is one of those memorable lines, familiar to most movie-goers of a certain age. The line concludes the 1972 Robert Redford movie, The Candidate, and is uttered by Redford's much compromised liberal senator-elect Bill McKay.

Florida's new senator-elect, Marco Rubio of Miami, doesn't have McKay's problem. Rubio is not a liberal. And he in no way compromised his conservative principles to win big last Tuesday, though his main opponent, partyless Florida Governor Charlie Crist (I-Narcissus), compromised whatever principles he may have once had by floating, unsuccessfully, a series of bogus charges against Rubio during the campaign.

Crist's political career is almost certainly over. Few here are weeping for the guy who changed his political positions so often, so completely, and so opportunistically that Brit Hume called him "the most flexible politician I've ever seen." In a column this week George Will referred to Crist as "Plasticman." In Florida politics, Crist is so 2006.

Rubio knows exactly what he wants to do now, which is to work to bring about a clear alternative to the toxic leftist agenda of President Obama and the Democratic Congress, an agenda which is turning America into something that it's never been and that most Americans don't want. After the election Rubio said his first priorities would be to cut federal spending, to see that the Bush tax cuts are made permanent, and to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

In his acceptance speech last Tuesday Rubio called the Republican surge "a second chance for Republicans to be what they said they were going to be not so long ago." Exactly. Rubio realizes the profligacy of Republicans in 2006 and 2008 is partly responsible for the country's woes. "Our nation is headed in the wrong direction and both parties are to blame," he said repeatedly on the campaign trail. If most members of the Republican Class of 2010 understand this, and I hope and trust they do, the better the chances Washington's wild spending will be brought under control.

Showing the influence the rookie senator-elect has in the new Republican Party, he was chosen to deliver the weekly Republican address Saturday. In it he said the Republican Party had given nothing less than a promise that if given power again "we would not squander the chance you gave us… we must not. Because nothing less than the identity of our country and what kind of future we will leave our children is at stake."

Marco gets it. And he invites voters to "hold us accountable to the ideas and principles we campaigned on. This is our second chance to get this right. To make the right decisions and the tough calls and to leave our children what they deserve -- the freest and most exceptional society in all of human history." (And if the Brits or the Greeks want to complain that we go on too much about our exceptionalism, they can complain to President Obama, who agrees with them.)

Timing is critical in war, love, and hitting a baseball. It's no less so in politics. And Rubio was the guy in Florida's three-way Senate race whose time had come.

Democratic Kendrick Meek watched Obama's dramatic win in 2008, in which he won 52 percent of red-state Florida's vote, and concluded it was time for another black liberal candidate to win state-wide in Florida. But the air went out of "that hopey-changey thing" (thanks to Sarah Palin for the expression) so fast that all Meek could scare up in 2010 was 20 percent of the vote in the Senate race.

Crist, who has never had a fixed ideological address, listened to the Republican establishment, and therefore thought 2010 was the year for moderate Republicans. When it turned out not to be, he tried to out-conservative Rubio to win the Republican nomination. When he fell hopelessly behind, he became an independent, gussied up all new liberal positions, and tried to fish for Democratic voters. He got more of these than Meek did, but ended with only 30 percent of the vote, a full 20 points behind Rubio.

Looks like Rubio was right when he repeated on the campaign trail, "We already have a Democratic Party. We don't need another one."

Rubio pledges to pursue policies that will help grow our economy, policies that re-assert our reliance on the free market and limited government. In addition to reigning in spending and extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, Rubio would like to cut corporate taxes to make American companies competitive, end the death tax, end double taxation, reform the U.S. Tax Code, stop consideration of the value-added tax, repeal regulations that hurt job creation, reduce barriers to free and fair trade, and fix entitlements.

These may not be all the actions and answers we need. But they're good ideas, and enough to keep Rubio and the Republican Class of 2010 off of K Street for a good long while. Maybe until another of Rubio's campaign suggestions is fulfilled. He said on the trail, "If you don't like the Republican establishment, get another establishment." Who said there are no new good ideas?

Video-Rubio

Via-

Class Acts

Miami, FL – Surrounded by family and loved ones, Marco Rubio’s father, Mario Rubio, passed away tonight at Baptist Hospital in Miami. He was 83 years old. Mario Rubio suffered from a long bout with emphysema and lung cancer.

In his final moments, Mario was accompanied by his loving wife of 61 years, Oria, his children Mario, Barbara, Marco and Veronica, and his extended family.

On the passing of his father, Marco Rubio issued the following statement:

“My father knew hard work and struggle from very early in his life. His mother died when he was only 9 years old. The day after his mother was buried he went to work with his father and did not stop working until he was 78 years old.

“He was by far the most unselfish person I have ever known, always focused on others, and never on his own well being. He was especially determined to provide his children opportunities he himself never had.

“My dad worked as a street vendor, security guard, apartment building manager and crossing guard. But for most of his life he was a bartender, and by all accounts a great one. But his greatest success came from the two most important jobs he ever had: husband and father.

“He was very proud of my public service. And over the last 18 months he became an expert channel surfer, constantly searching for my next television interview.

“I was blessed to be raised by a world class father. And I thank God for allowing my father to live long and healthy enough to see that the sacrifices he made for us were not in vain.”

For the entire Rubio family, as well as our campaign, politics will now be placed on temporary hold. We will resume our full schedule some time in the coming days. During this time, we respectfully ask for privacy for Marco and his family so they may mourn their loss in peace.

In lieu of flowers, the Rubio family requests honoring Mario Rubio’s memory by supporting the League Against Cancer/Liga Contra El Cancer http://ligacontraelcancer.org/.