Jonathan is right, Marco Rubio is far more prepared for the VP slot than Sarah Palin in 2008. Case in point: he delivered an impressive speech on foreign policy earlier today at the Brookings Institute. He even lost the last page of his remarks (every speaker’s nightmare) but managed to take it in stride.
The full text of the speech is worth reading here, but his direct repudiation of the isolationist streak within his own party is drawing the most attention:
I am always cautious about generalizations but until very recently, the general perception was that American conservatism believed in a robust and muscular foreign policy. That was certainly the hallmark of the foreign policy of President Reagan, and both President Bush’s. But when I arrived in the Senate last year I found that some of the traditional sides in the foreign policy debate had shifted.
On the one hand, I found liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans working together to advocate our withdrawal from Afghanistan, and staying out of Libya. On the other hand, I found myself partnering with Democrats like Bob Menendez and Bob Casey on a more forceful foreign policy. In fact, resolutions that I co-authored with Senator Casey condemning Assad and with Senator Menendez condemning fraudulent elections in Nicaragua were held up by Republicans. I recently joked that today, in the U.S. Senate, on foreign policy, if you go far enough to the right, you wind up on the left.
The far-left and far-right don’t just agree on the embrace of American decline, but also on the other problematic attitudes that tend to go along with isolationism and non-interventionism, including antipathy toward Israel and indifference to human rights in other countries. As a young senator elected with Tea Party support, Rubio is in a prime position to rebut creeping isolationism/non-interventionism among the conservative grassroots.
Rubio gave a broad outline of his vision for U.S. foreign policy, which is heavily influenced by Robert Kagan’s arguments on the myth of American decline (Kagan has also advised Romney on foreign policy). Rubio spoke passionately about human rights and called the spread of political and economic freedom across the world “a vital interest” for the U.S. He acknowledged that working in coalitions with other countries is often helpful, but added that these coalitions are most successful when the U.S. takes the lead. And he argued that if military action needs to be used against Iran, then Israel shouldn’t be left to shoulder the burden on its own.
Still, this is a speech that Rubio could have delayed for a few months. The fact that he decided to give it today, at the height of speculation over his possible VP nod, seems to indicate that he’s either interested in the job, or just wants to give the impression that he is.
I just want to be able to watch the Biden-Rubio debate. that will be a corker. Marco will take him apart!
In the long-term Rubio is correct. Supporting political and economic freedombeyond our borders is essential and of great benefit to our own future. However, those who think we should attend more to our troubles at home are correct to notice the enormous cost of our excursions into Afghanistan and Iraq and question with skepticismif it will ever be worth the investment.
Again I see nothing mentioning Congress' exclusive power to declare war, yet referring to Libya as if it was OK. Positions are more nuanced than the binary you pretend them to be; however, there are many details and downsides that are ignored. The advocation on this site of 'intervention' borders on imperialism, perhaps quasi-imperialism. Should we conscript 5 million Americans and attempt to 'prevent' atrocities across the continent of Africa; or maybe Asia? n nIf there were a debate, your position would be untenable against the logic from an American basis. You cannot merely gift a people(s) a nation thru military prowess, while expecting flowers to bloom and kumbaya to be sang. These comments probably don't even register, but it's worth a shot.
For some reason Rubio failed to mention the late 37th President, Dick Nixon, who experienced opposition both from Senators and Congressmen when he inherited the Vietnam War from Lyndon Johnson.. Both Bush 41 and Reagan actually went to school on the strong policies of Nixon, cf. his books 'Seize the moment' and 'The Real War'..
Mr Rubio somehow failed to mention the impact on foreign policy structured by Dick Nixon – the 37th President! Both Bush 41 and Reagan went to school on Nixon's policies in the field!! nAfter being ostracized in Public Debate since the late 1970's it is REALLY time to acknowledge Nixon's capacities and leadership – cf. Indiana State University's Bob Ferrell, and Joan Hoff's biography on his life in politics.. nPS. Only a man able to act in magnanimous manner would have resigned the highest office in the land, and RN was that kind of politician and human being!!