By ROBERT CAPEHERT
One of the things Libertarian Monks has done its able best to attack is conservative celebrity without warrant — that is, conservatives who grow government, creating heavier and more intrusive government — but somehow become conservative gods worthy of accolades.
Nevertheless, so-called conservative celebs all to often become the hope of Republican Party faithful to rise to the office of the Presidency.
This was the hype of Republican Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie — whom Dave Beilstein aptly described as, “[Christie] is too much hot air squeezed into the physique of a bowling pin for good sense.”
Still, conservative punditry was gaga about the fat man from Jersey for too many months.
That Gov. Christie is far better than Fidel Castro of Cuba or Michael Bloomberg of the fascistic State of Manhattan isn’t good enough — not for rekindling a constitutional perspective on the G.O.P wing of electoral politics. Nor has Gov. Christie been all that invective toward the goofy eared community agitator whom occupies the Oval Office chair at this moment in our nation’s history.
Now it looks like Banana heels Marco Rubio has reached such a cloudy mesa. With the Florida senator’s Gang of Eight vainglory, Sen. Rubio (R-FL) has floundered and been seduced by Washingtonian politics as usual — meaning ineffective and bloated State authority reaching into the American citizens wallet, shoes, toilet, etc.
Still, voices on the conservative side still celebrate Rubio as a future conservative candidate for the presidency of these United States of America.
If Rubio does not see that he was played by a bunch of statist clowns he is either too ignorant or not bright enough to be president.
The leftist Democratic Party leadership knew if they could seduce Rubio on issues of immigration, they would remove him as a threat because of the mostly unified front sundry constitutional conservatives have when it comes to issues of illegal immigration. The Gang of Eight was a virus meant for Rubio — to marginalise and render him untrustworthy to conservatives. Not by attack, but by getting Rubio to hawk legislation which respects no decent exegesis of a founding father’s perspective on our nations borders and national sovereignty.
Despite all this — who knows if because of it — Rubio stepped in sleek excreta and vows to get on board an immigration bill Congress seeks to pass without reading a damn word of it (again!).
Nation Review aptly called this Rubio’s folly in a cover issue a couple months ago. I could think of better descriptive words, but as much as we fail here, Libertarian Monks does desire (a tad!) to be a family friendly blog outpost.
I am not saying Rubio has not had moments of classical liberal enlightenment. He stood shoulder to shoulder with Rand Paul on several key issues. And he has done a so-so job rebuking the worst President Obama has himself slipped and fallen into heavy rotation.
But Rubio has capitulated on a whole mess of policy matters — presuming again, that because he throws a cultural conservative bone here and there — he’s some kind of precedent setting classical liberal.
Sorry, not buying it.
So far, Rubio’s average. He is no Barry Goldwater — as Rubio’s nature would be to pass a bill before repealing one. That’s kind of the (Gold)water standard here at Libertarian Monks of how truly conservative a politician is. Is he or she politically more aroused by passage of another bill putting more control in the hands of inept civil servants in Washington, D.C. — than he or she is of repealing bills and preventing legislation?
Goldwater lived to block bills and repeal them. It was akin to sexual arousal to the man. Goldwater blocked bills he himself agreed with a lot of their intentions — but felt constitutionally, the government had no business legislating on the people.
That’s constitutional conservatism. One repeals bills (or blocks passage of bills) even when they might help one’s own personal social/cultural agenda — because government authority is limited. In actuality, constitutional conservatism is an antipode to policy-by-preference legislation.
By the way, when’s the last time such a conception was the sense conservative advocates kindled in voters fertile minds?
Rubio, in contrast, is more seduced by the idea of power and its accumulation at the Federal level of government, then its denudation — and the reanimation of a constitutional republicanism.