Over on the Republican side, the news couldn't have been better for the Democratic Party. The nearly-unelectable Donald Trump won big. John Kasich, the establishment candidate merely tolerated by the Establishment, came in second while the favorites of the Big Money Boyz, Chris Christie and Marco Rubio, came in sixth and fifth, respectively.
All is not lost, though, for the Florida senator, whose remarks in defeat were almost as eloquent as were cunning those after the Iowa caucus. "Our disappointment tonight is not on you," Rubio generously told supporters. "It's on me. It's on me. I did not do well on Saturday night, so listen to this: That will never happen again."
We already knew, however, that Rubio gives a great speech. Chris Christie reminded viewers of that Saturnday night, as well as that the Senator gives it over and over again. And again.
It may seem like kicking a man when he's down, but given that Rubio is still viable, let's acknowledge how dangerous this man is. The same guy who claims President Obama "systematically and habitually violates the Constitution" also maintains(video below) "We are clearly called to adhere to our civil authorities, But when they are in conflict with biblical teachings, 'God's rules always win.'"
Presumably, it doesn't strike Rubio as hypocritical that he charges Obama with "systematically and habitually" violating the Constitution while he himself advocates following God's law when it conflicts with the Constitution.
Nonetheless, in a race which includes at least two other wannabe theocrats, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz, and every candidate has pledged allegiance to opposing a woman's right to choose, Senator Rubio has stood out (or deserves to stand out) for his unswerving commitment to dishonesty about the military.
Proclaiming "the gutting of our military is not an accident," Rubio on Saturday night claimed
I think the more fundamental challenge we’re now facing is what’s happening to the U.S. military — I’ve said this many times, and I think it’s important to start paying attention to this. Our Air Force is about to be the smallest it’s been in 100 years. I’m sorry, in our history. Our Army is set to be smaller than it’s been since the second World War, and our Navy is about to be the smallest than it’s been in 100 years.
That claim has made almost verbatim by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Politifact, which has found it reasonably accurate, nevertheless asserted after speaking to a consultant "sequestration has hindered military capabilities -- particularly in light of recent developments in Iraq and Syria. The Pentagon has had to make cuts to its day-to-day operations, while carrying out missions in the Middle East that were not budgeted for."
Graham's criticism- which formed the basis of Rubio's- was, Politifact concluded
not a fair comparison because technology and capabilities have grown so much in the past century. The Army and Navy of today are much more capable than they were decades ago, even with fewer soldiers and ships. A better comparison is to look at how the U.S. military stands up relative to other nations.
More insulting is Rubio's vow
to begin to refocus on rebuilding our military because every time we have cut our military in the history of this country we have had to come back later and rebuild it, and it costs more, and it’s a lot more chaotic and dangerous. When I’m president, we are rebuilding the U.S. military.
This is necessary because, the young man says, "It’s about believing, unlike Barack Obama, that the world is a safer and a better place when America is the strongest military and the strongest nation on this planet."
He already had informed us that President Obama is "undermining" the country. But unlike Fred Kaplan, he did not tell us that the current military budget
amounts to $583 billion, a mere 0.4-percent increase over this year’s budget.
However, that’s only the sum requested by the Defense Department. The Office of Management and Budget, which oversees the entire federal government, speaks of appropriations for “national defense,” which also include the Energy Department’s nuclear weapons programs and assorted items in various other agencies, which together total another $25 billion.
All told, then, the budget request for national defense adds up to $608 billion—a 2.1-percent increase over this year’s budget: not enormous, but not trivial either, and certainly not a cut....
Comparing the eight years of George W. Bush’s base budgets and the eight years of Obama’s (including the one proposed today), Obama’s exceed Bush’s by a sum total of $816.7 billion ($4,121.2 billion for Obama’s two terms, $3,304.5 for Bush’s). (See thecomptroller’s document, Pages 1–4. This chart doesn’t adjust these figures for inflation; if it did, the difference would be smaller but not by much.)
Admittedly, Marco Rubio did not say that President Obama had destroyed the military budget or even cut it. He did, however, maintain that Barack Obama does not believe "that the world is a safer and a better place when America is the strongest military and the strongest nation on this planet." Given the President's defense budgets and the likelihood that someone who touts his knowledge of foreign affairs from his experience on the Foreign Relations Committee would have some clue of this, Rubio likely is lying.
Results from New Hampshire indicate that Chris Chrisite did himself no good by savaging Marco Rubio. However, after six years as governor of a large state and 7+ months as a presidential candidate, he finally has provided a useful service.