After a poor Super Tuesday showing, is it time for Marco Rubio to drop out?

GOP primary delegate count after Super Tuesday
GOP primary delegate count after Super Tuesday

I actually thought that grassroots conservative leader Erick Erickson was a supporter of Rubio for the longest time, but I guess he did pretty badly in the Super Tuesday primaries, because now Erickson is calling for him to drop out, and accept the Vice Presidency.

Erickson writes:

I have tried very hard to be neutral in the race between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. They are both friends. But reality dawns. Rubio has won only a single state (Minnesota), and even then not all the delegates, and tells us we must wait until Florida on March 15th. Cruz is already winning states more solidly and leads in delegates.

In 1980, as the nation was falling apart, Ronald Reagan as the outsider and George H. W. Bush as the insider were willing to set aside personal and policy differences to unite for the good of the country. Reagan had attacked Bush on his illegal immigration position. Bush had coined the term “voodoo economics” to describe Reagan’s economic policies. But they overcame that, they united, and they not only beat Jimmy Carter, but a third party bid by John Anderson.

It is time for Rubio to accept he will not be the nominee. He keeps telling us he will pay the bill tomorrow, but tomorrow has not yet come and he is behind by double digits in his home state.

It is time for Ted Cruz to accept we need a unity ticket and for Rubio to agree to be Cruz’s Vice Presidential pick, uniting the outsider and insider factions of the party and stopping Trump in the process.

Cruz has won three states. Rubio won Minnesota with split delegates. The non-Trump faction has the delegates to stop Trump. But now there must be unity.

It is time to divide the map, combine the campaigns, and fight Trump state by state all the way to the convention as if a single ticket.

True, Rubio will say the map moving forward is more favorable to him. But that excludes voter expectations and perceptions. The reality is that Cruz is winning states, Rubio is not, and together they could dominate. Outside groups should concentrate all fire on Trump while Cruz and Rubio show the country that they can pull America from the brink.

Ted Cruz has stopped Trump in three states. It is time for Team Rubio to acknowledge that.

Actually, Ted Cruz has stopped Trump in FOUR states. Alaska also went for Cruz, but those results came out after Erickson’s post was already posted. That’s 4 states to Rubio’s 1.

I used to blog a lot about Marco Rubio, before he championed the 2013 amnesty. I remember the moment I discovered that he was one of the Gang of Eight like most people remember where they were on 9/11. I remember the story, and the picture of Rubio standing in with radical leftists Republican moderates like John McCain and Lindsay Graham. People who had stabbed us in the back so many times before on important things like Supreme Court judicial nominations. I remember thinking: “what is Marco doing with them?”

That was the end of my interest in Marco Rubio. And he’s not going to win this election, given his record on amnesty and so many other liberal policies and priorities. If Donald Trump stands for anything, he stands for border security. And Marco Rubio is the opposite of that. There is just no way that Marco Rubio would be able to get the support of the Republican electorate. He’s even down 20 points in his home state of Florida. Trump’s popularity is due in large part because of the betrayal of moderate, establishment Republicans like Marco Rubio.  The Washington elites need to realize that this time it is their turn to fall in line with Cruz, even if they can’t fall in love with Cruz.

When Rubio was elected to political office, he authored an amnesty bill, he supported the failed Libya invasion, he gave in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, he weakened border security, he authored a bill to remove the due process rights of men falsely accused of rape on campus, he skipped votes to defund Planned Parenthood, he has a billionaire pro-gay-marriage donor, and is very friendly with gay activists who are opposed to religious liberty and conscience protections for Christians, and so on. We can’t have the Republican nominee be a liberal moderate in the mold of Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney. The establishment has had a good long run at ignoring the base and now it’s come to an end. We need a real conservative this time: Ted Cruz.

11 thoughts on “After a poor Super Tuesday showing, is it time for Marco Rubio to drop out?”

  1. If Rubio would agree today to be Cruz’ VP that would be the best news possible. But he will convince himself that his best states are yet to come. Sad situation. We are going to get the truly awful leaders that we, as a country, deserve.


    1. I am the same situation. I have taken a preference to Trump since I joined the Alt Right about 6 months ago. If Rubio drops out and Cruz ends up beating Trump, good for Cruz. If Rubio stays in and we get a brokered convention, I am scared to death that the establishment shill Rubio will be the nominee. That scares me half to death.

      Rubio’s path to citizenship is just a path to pack the country with Democrat voters who reproduce future Democrat voters at much higher rates than the rest of the country.

      The source of the problem is the 1965 Immigration Act. Imagine two different scenarios: a lone Pakistani Muslim immigrates to the United States, learns English, converts to Christianity, and raises a family in the suburbs. Their children become assimilated Americans.

      In the other scenario, 1,000 Pakistani immigrants immigrate together. They form a Pakistani Muslim community, marry each other, and raise a colony of Pakistani Muslims inside our borders.

      The 1965 Immigration Act changed immigration from the former to the latter. Instead of having per-country limits, these were changed to overall limits, meaning that we could have higher concentrations of immigrants from certain countries.

      Family reunification not only greatly reduced pressure to assimilate, but also undermined the very limits set on immigration, making sure that we would have lots more colonies of third-worlders in our borders.


  2. I’m glad to see in your subsequent post that our Knight in shining armor is moving to the right battle front: defeating Trump. Unfortunately, there are as many theories and strategies as to how to do so as there are pundits. There are smart conservatives counseling consolidation, others counseling splitting the delegates until the convention to deprive Trump of a majority.

    If consolidation is in order, it’s unfortunate that so much damage has been done between supporters of Cruz and Rubio, to which you have contributed. One of the things I hate about politics is that it tempts us to engage in the kind of politicking that we would instantly condemn in our opponents. I’ve been frustrated by the tendentious and misleading claims you and Cruz have made against my preferred candidate, Rubio. The most annoying example is the intentionally sloppy use of the term “amnesty” to try to characterize Rubio as liar. For all its faults, the 2013 Immigration Modernization Act was not amnesty. It did not pardon illegal immigrants of their crime. It levied a fine of $1000, among other requirements. Strictly speaking, Rubio did not lie nor break a campaign promise. The same sloppiness was evident in the effort to make something of Rubio’s remarks on Univision. As I said when writing about this before, it is a grave charge to call someone a liar. The charge should only be made in clear cases.

    I will let bygones be bygones if it’s best to consolidate behind Cruz, who generally seems to be a man of integrity. But, I urge you again, Mr. Knight, to be unwilling to round the sharp corners of truth as you support your man. That will make it a lot easier for the rest of us to support him wholeheartedly.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. WK, “The penalty for entering the country illegally is deportation. Period.”

        Can you cite a statute or legal authority that prescribes that all illegals must be deported as a punishment?

        Laws are made for people, not people for the law. Mass deporting 11 million will lead to societal and economic chaos. I don’t want to be in a country where feds are mobilized at great cost to hunt down and deport people who have been working and integrated in the country for twenty years. Not all illegals are the same. They are in many different circumstances, and should be treated accordingly rather than one size fits all.

        Focusing on punishment by the term “amnesty” is an absolute, unbalanced way of addressing this long-festering problem. Yes, our country has been remiss in not enforcing it’s laws, but suddenly enforcing it with extreme prejudice is not prudent.

        A pathway is a mere possibility which is due to a negative omission. By contrast, hardliners want to positively bar the possibility of integration whatsoever, which many will see as vindictive. And putting illegals to the back of the line is not rewarding them. Cruz has really positioned himself in a disingenuous way. But I give him slack, because that’s how politics rolls.


        1. A good reminder, cogitatingduck: “laws are made for people”. Lawlessness, corruption, and the moral hazard of not upholding the rule of law are serious concerns, but Jesus’ Sabbath rebuke to the pharisees is surely relevant here. Fortunately, even with the deep well of anti-immigrant fervor tapped into by Trump, in exit polls a majority of Republicans favor a path to legalization. It’s unfortunate that the politics of the moment have pushed Cruz towards a harder line than I believe he would take otherwise, but you’re right, that’s how it rolls.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. False. Mass deporting 11 million illegals will lead to a massive plunge in the crime rate and strain on social programs. It will also boost wages in low-skilled and unskilled labor, due to its reduction in supply of said labor.

          The liberal plan makes a twisted amount of sense. Import loads of future Democrat immigrants to drop unskilled wages, then demand a higher minimum wage way above market rate (and get votes for implementing it), and then get votes again when your plan puts millions out of work and you support them with your social programs.


  3. Since when and by whom was it decided that a “path to citizenship” means “amnesty”. It just doesn’t. And if you and Rubio mean different things by it, fine. But that’s not lying.

    You know I’ve responded to your other dozen points before, but yes, I’m especially disappointed by the accusation of lying on this one. As an ally in politics and philosophy, you also know that the last thing I’m interested in is “my own facts”.

    As I said, the unwarranted hostility to Rubio makes consolidating more difficult, and the lack of conciliation in this instance doesn’t help.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s