Is it just me, or does anyone else out there think that presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio is going to burst a blood vessel the next time he debates? Though I find him the angriest of the Republican candidates, Sen. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are not far behind in exceeding their rage quotients. Instead of reasoned discussions with the expected "point and counter-point" of a parliamentary debate, what we are witnessing is a level of acrimony uncalled for in today's politics.
Let me make it plain that I was a real Rubio admirer a few months ago. Sure, he had flip-flopped on the immigration, and cap and trade issues, had some baggage with his personal finances, and sports one of the worst attendance records in Senate history. But he was young, attractive, smart, extremely articulate, and had an appealing, up-by-the-bootstraps life story that promised to resonate with voters.
So why the vitriol and heated delivery style of Rubio and the more successful GOP candidates? It's a matter of the right reaping what it has sowed. The so-called GOP base, long marinated in the fury and resentment of talk radio, the high-decibel level of Fox TV, and Internet sites that bubble over with bile have demanded take-no-prisoners, anti-establishment fighters. But how do Rubio's untempered remarks, sprayed like bursts from an AK-47, serve the purpose of public discourse?
It would be one thing if what he said was undeniably true, but it's not. A certain amount of hyperbole is expected in politics, but Rubio exceeds the norm. In the Jan. 28 debate, he claimed, "This campaign is about a President who has systematically destroyed much of the things that make America great." He "systematically and habitually violates the Constitution of the United States."
Now think about these claims for a moment. Obama may have lots of flaws, especially in the foreign policy arena, but has he really "systematically destroyed much of the things that make America great" and does he "habitually violate the Constitution?" Even if you think his executive orders are violations, keep in mind that over his two terms, Obama has issued 228 executive orders to date. Some have pertained to issues like immigration, where Congress has refused to act. His predecessor, George W. Bush, issued 291 executive orders. Both presidents are dwarfed by Reagan's 381. I don't recall St. Ronald's own party screaming about any Constitutional violations. Rubio's gross exaggerations are the stuff of wacko bloggers, and the other debaters and the moderators should call him out on this.
Besides, if Obama was systematically destroying America and violating the Constitution, wouldn't this GOP-controlled Congress have started impeachment proceedings by now? The fact that it has not is proof that Rubio is only slinging outrageous accusations against the wall to see if any stick with the voters.
He's done the same thing on the issue of immigration. On Jan. 31's "Meet the Press," Rubio claimed, "We are worse off today than we were five years ago. We have more illegal immigrants here." Yet, the Center for Migration Studies just released a report based on census figures that estimated there were 10.9 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. as of 2014, the smallest number since 2003. You'd think Rubio would get the numbers right on one of his signature issues, but he'd rather feed red meat to the base.
Rubio has also made some wild claims about Obama's gutting of the Pentagon's budget. However, it was the sequestration's automatic spending cuts that dampened military spending, and these were dictated by the Budget Control Act of 2011, passed by, you guessed it, Congress.
There's more. In the Feb. 6 debate, Rubio claimed that Hillary Clinton supports abortion on "the baby's due date," when in reality what she maintains is that the "life and health of the mother" must be taken into consideration throughout the entire pregnancy. This is a textbook example of viciously twisting language.
It is traditional for the party out of power to criticize the party in power. I get that, but I don't understand why politicians find it necessary to spout patently untrue statements that only serve to rile up the uninformed. Rubio is a gifted politician and will need the independent vote to win. That's why it pains me to see him resort to tactics best left to desperate, back-water politicians and former reality TV stars.
Frank Batavick writes from Westminster. His column appears Fridays. Email him at fjbatavick@gmail.com.
