quote:

A Hillary Clinton Match-Up With Marco Rubio Is a Scary Thought for Democrats



WASHINGTON — They use words like “historic” and “charismatic,” phrases like “great potential” and “million-dollar smile.” They notice audience members moved to tears by an American-dream-come-true success story. When they look at the cold, hard political math, they get uneasy.

An incipient sense of anxiety is tugging at some Democrats — a feeling tersely captured in four words from a blog post written recently by a seasoned party strategist in Florida: “Marco Rubio scares me.”

...

Yet the worriers include some on Mrs. Clinton’s team. And even former President Bill Clinton is said to worry that Mr. Rubio could become the Republican nominee, whittle away at Mrs. Clinton’s support from Hispanics and jeopardize her chances of carrying Florida’s vital 29 electoral votes.

Democrats express concerns not only about whether Mr. Rubio, 43, a son of Cuban immigrants, will win over Hispanic voters, a growing and increasingly important slice of the electorate. They also worry that he would offer a sharp generational contrast to Mrs. Clinton, a fixture in American politics for nearly a quarter-century who will turn 69 before the election.

As her supporters recall, Barack Obama beat Mrs. Clinton for the nomination in the 2008 elections after drawing similar contrasts himself.

...

Mr. Rubio “is a powerful speaker,” Ms. Doyle added. “He is young. He is very motivational. He has a powerful story.”

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/23/us/politics/prospect-of-hillary-clinton-marco-rubio-matchup-unnerves-democrats.html?_r=0

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
Rubio voted against reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
That's just a special kinda dumb.

quote:

Statement on my Vote Against the Violence Against Women Act
I believe we should have re-authorized the existing Violence Against Women Act that has helped reduce the annual incidence of domestic violence by more than 50 percent, among other successes. I also continue supporting the work being done at the federal, state and local levels to combat domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. I specifically support such ideas as:
Authorizing programs in the Department of Justice and Department of Health and Human Services to help prevent and reduce violence against women. The annual incidence of domestic violence has dropped more than 50 percent since VAWA became law.
Renewing previously successful programs that have helped law enforcement, prosecutors, and victim service providers keep victims safe and hold criminals accountable.
Consolidating 13 existing overlapping programs into 4 to reduce administrative costs and avoid duplication.
Including provisions that address the problem of untested sexual assault evidence that could be used to prosecute offenders and solve cold cases.
I was also proud to have cosponsored and voted for the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which was presented by Senator Patrick Leahy as an amendment today. This amendment is almost identical to the 2011 legislation of the same name which I also co-sponsored. I fully support this re-authorization of programs to combat modern day slavery both in the United States and abroad. This amendment promotes increased cooperation among federal agencies, supports the victim-centered approach to trafficking and promotes accountability by ensuring federal funds are used for their intended purposes. I wish we could have had a full debate on this bill separately and the issue of human trafficking, so that more attention could be focused on the problem of modern day slavery. But I was nonetheless proud to support this measure and hope it eventually becomes law.

Unfortunately, I could not support the final, entire legislation that contains new provisions that could have potentially adverse consequences. Specifically, this bill would mandate the diversion of a portion of funding from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs, although there’s no evidence to suggest this shift will result in a greater number of convictions. These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice. Additionally, I have concerns regarding the conferring of criminal jurisdiction to some Indian tribal governments over all persons in Indian country, including non-Indians.

Permalink: http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/2/statement-on-my-vote-against-the-violence-against-women-act

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
Wait, actually, if you look at who voted against VAWA, and who's running for Republican nomination.....

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Oh? Like because the latest version extends the same protections for same-sex victims of domestic violence?

Kinda a big deal for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
Oh? Like because the latest version extends the same protections for same-sex victims of domestic violence?
Kinda a big deal for me.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

No women in the Senate voted against the act. In fact, it was cosponsored by all but one of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

greg gutfeld was recently talking about an author who wrote a book highlighting similar misconceptions---the left looks at the right and judges them wrongly based on a mischaracterization of their motives/intent as opposed to simply disagreeing with their judgment in any particular instance.

if Rubio and paul, and others voted against the act---its because they are misogynist, think women are lesser humans, hate gays, etc---and not because the bill itself contained elements were wasteful, ineffectual, spurious, over-reaching, or that it was redundant, etc.

and the people who created that photo with all the republicans on it and the simplistic heading associated with it are taking advantage of that principle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

No women in the Senate voted against the act. In fact, it was cosponsored by all but one of them.

Which proves nothing.

quote:

DesideriScuri
Every single one of them may have had similar, and valid, reasons to oppose the reauthorization. Rather than trying to understand why, you're content to just bash them with opposing a bill title. If any one of them is a misogynist, and that is why he opposed it, I'll join you in bashing them for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
greg gutfeld was recently talking about an author who wrote a book highlighting similar misconceptions---the left looks at the right and judges them wrongly based on a mischaracterization of their motives/intent as opposed to simply disagreeing with their judgment in any particular instance.
if Rubio and paul, and others voted against the act---its because they are misogynist, think women are lesser humans, hate gays, etc---and not because the bill itself contained elements were wasteful, ineffectual, spurious, over-reaching, or that it was redundant, etc.
and the people who created that photo with all the republicans on it and the simplistic heading associated with it are taking advantage of that principle.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)