Originally posted July 22, 2015.
Hillary Clinton would be a whole lot worse president than Marco Rubio, but Rubio sets a low bar and would be a dreadful choice.
My Cato Institute-centric friend John Basil Utley is the publisher of the American Conservative, published in Washington six times a year. The word conservative has unfortunately been co-opted by the neocon war dogs like McCain, Graham, Rubio, and the Christian right. Readers of the American Conservative are more interested in the real meaning of the word conservative, which is centered on a desire to adopt an originalist intent reading of the constitution, a return to a states rights centered approach to government and an end to neocon championed military intervention and nation building.
In the July/August issue of TAC, Miami Herald columnist A.J. Delgado deals with the foul ball that is Marco Rubio. Here is what A.J. tells readers:
Rubio’s amnesty push alone should have been the nail in the coffin of any presidential ambition: it’s a position advanced mostly by crony businessmen seeking cheaper, wider labor pools.
While most presidential contenders sensibly admit that the Iraq invasion was a mistake in hindsight, Rubio steadfastly insists it was not. This, despite over 4,400 dead Americans, half a million dead Iraqis, a staggering $2 trillion price tag—10 percent of our national debt—and the creation of a power vacuum that has enabled the rise of ISIS. Rubio would even commit our troops yet again.
Much like Sen. John McCain, Rubio appears to be a man who never met an intervention he did not like.