Marco’s Common Good: Where does it lead?

Some supporters of Rubio claim his speech as “remarkable.” Well, I guess they can claim that depending upon what their definition of is is in “remarkable.” And yet I find it highly irritating to hear claims of praise for it being remarkable when No. No. No. It was not remarkable.

It was meh. It sounded like someone reaching out to people who need emotional support through words of flowery feel goods, shared feelings of the pain, the suffering, all in the voice of a whiner so as to prove feelings matter and how Marco, a potential leader for the universe, is with us all in seeking governmental solutions for Common Good Capitalism.

Blah-bity-blah-bity-blah. 

Marco’s quote from Robert F. Kennedy was interesting:

  • Senator Robert F. Kennedy noted that “if… we, as Americans, are bound together by a common concern for each other, then an urgent national priority is upon us.”
  • Because, he said, “even if we act to erase material poverty, there is another greater task; it is to confront the poverty of satisfaction – purpose and dignity – that afflicts us all.”

Yes. The poverty of satisfaction. I am wholly unstatisfied with the double speak that seems to pour through this remarkable speech. And my feelings have little changed since my initial reaction posted here.

If Marco means what he says:

  • My goal for this speech, but also in what I have tried to do in the Senate, is above all else about doing whatever it takes to keep our country from coming apart – whatever it takes so that this exceptional nation continues and endures instead of ending with us.

Then Marco and his crew need to seriously engage in a discussion to address valid criticisms of Marco’s seemingly self-serving speech. Otherwise, all of the remarkable Rubio talking points are merely an outreach to moderate leaning socialists while alienating his conservative base.

Perhaps Marco is in need of a new voting base for his next campaign?

Additional Reading:


  • Marco “Greeted Like A Rock Star”…

    • Rubio delivered a well-received 30-minute speech, hitting key campaign issues including jobs, the “crushing national debt,” national security and immigration, even taking a dig at Republicans now serving in Washington. He said temporary tax cuts should become permanent, but spending cuts, including a ban on earmarks, also would be necessary to achieve a balanced budget. The economy continues to suffer, in part, because business owners who could add employees and expand are “afraid to because of uncertainty about the future,” Rubio said. “Small businesses are taking the brunt of it and we’re all paying the price.”

  • Rubio: Our National Security Depends on Sugar Subsidies
  • #HaveTheDiscussion: Free Markets & Capitalism

Absolute Reads:

Remarkable Rubio Posts from #TeamRubio 

 

Marco Rubio: A government that promises…

While on Twitter I saw several live Tweets about Marco Rubio speaking to “a business class at Catholic University.” Here are the news stories I read about his speech from links referenced in the tweets: 

Two very different headlines, each designed to grab the attention of the reader, but my problem was with the reactions to Marco’s speech from, again, two very different headlines. 

The Washington Post article is the first one that I read. It made blood shoot out of my eyes. On Twitter I tagged Dan Holler, who works for Rubio, asking him for the link to the actual copy of the speech. Dan was great to lead me to this link that was posted on Rubio’s Senate page and from that press release you can go read Rubio as the original source, not merely how his words were interpreted. 

Reading the Daily Signal article did make me feel a little better, not much. Reading Marco’s speech, well, if nails on a chalkboard bothered me, yeah, that is the kind of feeling I would describe from this particular speech writing of Rubio.

Feel free to download Rubio’s speech and read along as you watch him give the speech below. You might jot down thoughts and questions in the margin of the Rubio script as you listen to him.

I have a lot more to say on this. My problem is that watching the video of the speech still make blood shoot out of my eyes. I have to cool my jets and go through it all again so I can write without screaming on the page. I have to check my emotional response to go through what really irritated me, and still irritates me about that which I am hearing come out of Marco’s Mouth. 

Additional Reading: 

#HaveTheDiscussion: Free Markets & Capitalism

Rachel Brevard wrote, what I thought, a great piece titled Hawley is Asking the Right Questions About the Dollar. I posted a few snippets from her article on Twitter and one quote brought out a quick comeback from my favorite Capitalist Pig, Jonathan Hoenig. Jonathan was short and to the point in his response.

Please note: It was late last night when I posted Rachel’s piece. I actually fell asleep with my phone in hand prior to finishing posting the thread so did feel a little slighted that Jonathan seemed to unjustly reprimand me. (It is all good. Water off a duck’s back, really. I truly adore him.)

Jonathan talks a lot about free markets, capitalism, and Wall Street. He has an online show about Objective Investing most Saturdays, usually around 10 a.m. Central. There have been a few times when I recall him saying “defend Capitalism” and once, when a viewer pummeled the timeline with contrary opinions, Jonathan responded with, “come on, help me out here [audience].” as he defended his capitalist pig position.

He is right. Defend Capitalism.

In Rachel’s article, I like how she goes through a thought process. Using questions, she addresses the language, the phraseology that is used in the media today. I have heard those terms and phrases used for years but she asks questions and then is clear to state:

Maybe the answer to both these questions is yes, and maybe Hawley’s pursuit of these policy corrections is misguided. But the conversation he is starting is not out of line. Their dismissal of it is.

And it’s to the benefit of everyone on the Right to welcome an honest assessment of the realities in the current marketplace, test whether old assumptions still apply, and either attack or defend them with the intellectual rigor our politics deserve.

The conversation is not out of line. Their dismissal of it is.

I know what Jonathan thinks. He is a follower of Ayn Rand. He promotes Objectivism and as mentioned previously, has his own twist in how he applies her theory to being objective in his investment philosophy, which I find useful as an investment philosophy.

What I love about Jonathan is his expertise in the markets. I love that he generously shares what he has learned, his personal experience with others. He is quick witted. His mind is agile, filled with information and he is, usually, quick on the draw with his encyclopedia-like capitalist pig knowledge.

Like Jonathan and Rachel, I agree that discussions and defense of the free market, true capitalism, must be had to correctly influence those beguiled by the anti-capitalist sophists in American culture today. Influencing the public by answering anti-capitalist questions with better questions and then following up with true, free market principles in the discussion seems a more effective way to educate those within our spheres of influence.

Why not defend Capitalism by acknowledging it is based upon principles that Matt Kibbe so eloquently discusses in Don’t Hurt People and Don’t Take Their Stuff? Could we then  better defend Capitalism by acknowledging that Taxpayers are not responsible for corporate or government bailouts? And what would happen if we defend Capitalism by discussing bad practices and correctly labeling criminal behavior as anti-capitalist instead of blaming Wall Street collectively?

Miscreants who lie, cheat, steal, and abuse the Capitalist System are not Capitalists. They are what they are, liars, cheaters, thieves and system abusers or basically, anti-capitalists.

I think in reaching out to the common man and woman, and I include myself in that statement, gentle persuasion, asking questions, and offering suggestions is a more effective way to win friends and influence people. And I say that as a screamer, one who has blood shooting out of her eyes, and my head popping off from having had to listen to the sophistry of socialists and totalitarians and anti-capitalists and watching RINOs for many years.

Suggested Reading & Viewing: