By way of the commendably-sufferable Andrew Sullivan we find this eyebrow-raising statement by Samuel Goldman:
[T]he premature elevation of Rubio as frontrunner for 2016 is precisely the wrong strategy for building a Republican majority. Rubio is young and charismatic. But he’s a vocal supporter of the Bush-era policies that voters have twice rejected, especially on foreign policy. One lesson of this election is that Americans do not want another war. I doubt their appetite for confrontation will increase over the next four years.
If we judge what “Americans” want by what the executive branch has done under Obama, “Americans” are peachy-keen with the idea of (among other things) staying in Afghanistan, incinerating random Pakistani males of military age who may or may not be in the vicinity of where reported terrorists were sighted sixteen hours before the drone showed up, and straight-up murdering without judicial oversight or due process of law American citizens, provided that those American citizens have brown skin and scary Ay-rab sounding names. “Americans” in 2008 might have been forgiven for thinking that they weren’t voting for four more years of Bush 43’s foreign policy, but “Americans” in 2012 have no such excuse.
It has often been the case that significant political changes can only occur when a President plays against type. So only Nixon could go to China and only George Bush (41) could sign the 1990 Clean Air Act (the largest and most costly environmental statute ever enacted. Perhaps, by the same token, only a Democratic president could legitimize (and in some cases expand) the aggressive anti-terror policies of the Bush (43) Administration, as Obama has done.
“butbutbutROMNEY!“, I hear you cry. Tango sierra, sugarplum. Unless you pulled the lever for a third-party candidate I don’t want to hear word one about your so-called anti-war views. Between drones over Waziristan, bombs over Libya, and “disposition matrices” we have a pretty good view of what you voted for, and I don’t need to know if you voted for Obama or Romney to make that assertion.
By the same token, all you asshats out there who’re pissing and moaning about the size of government and in particular the size of government debt but proudly refused to throw your vote away need to choke on a family-sized can of horse cock. Don’t let’s pretend that either major-party candidate had either a serious plan for reducing the budget to manageable levels or a serious interest in doing so. If Obama wanted to do something about the deficit, he’d have endorsed Simpson-Bowles. If Romney wanted to do something about the deficit, he’d have proposed a plan less fantastical than “extend all the tax cuts, increase military spending, and whatever happens don’t touch Social Security”. We’ve been kicking this can down the road for a long time, and the only thing that’s changed recently is that in 2005 Bush laced up a pair of soccer cleats for his second term. And please, people, don’t shout “Obamacare!” in my comments in defence of Mitt Romney’s purported budgetary hawkishness.
In any event, you need to read this piece by Skippystalin most fucking pronto.