So, Jeff, what is the rule for limiting access to the stage? There has to be a “barrier to entry” or is it come one, come all? Yeah, that’ll beat the president.
Were I to be glib, I’d start my answer by suggesting that one thing we shouldn’t be doing as a “barrier to entry” is, after the fact, calling for the “exile” from future debates of the man many believed to be the debate’s winner. Because it seems to me that any enforcement of entry barriers that denies the voters the very candidate they seem to favor — because one believes that the Party needs to make the viability determination, even if the determination they seem consistently to make is at odds with what their putative constituents crave in a candidate — is a sure way to push the TEA Partiers into either splintering off into a third party, or else staying home.
But I’m not glib. So I won’t say that.
Instead, let’s try this. Hugh writes:
I don’t believe in a market selecting nominees –- political parties ought to do that. And I certainly don’t believe in independent voters selecting Republican nominees, and given that the independents of New Hampshire gave us Senator McCain in 2008, I think the case why we don’t want that is pretty clear.
Two things: first, I thought it was the “independents” that the GOP was always chasing down. So it is curious that suddenly we’re averse to their having any say in who gets the GOP nomination.
I’m not saying I want open primaries; in fact, I think they happen to a problem for the same reasons as does Mr Hewitt. But we need to be careful here about who we’re defining as “independents.” Because I happen to see a vast array of classical liberals / legal conservatives / and erstwhile Reagan Democrats who increasingly refuse to self-identify as member of any particular party. This was clear in November, when we witnessed a Republican resurgence that had little if anything to do with the Republican party. Instead, this surge should have taught the GOP that, for the time being, this group of increasingly unaffiliated voters — many of whom had been Republicans, but who had since grown despairing of the fecklessness and “centrism” of the current GOP — were willing to vote with the Republicans as a way to cast an effective vote against the progressive Democrats and their agenda.
So when I speak of a market selecting the candidates, I’m not speaking of a completely unregulated market (to continue the analogy). Of course there need be certain barriers to entry. And in fact, in the case of this first debate, there were: namely, these are the people with serious intent to run who agreed to participate in the debate.
Second, if you wish to have political parties select their own potential candidates — and it makes sense that they do, in theory — the political party in question would do well to make sure that among the potential candidates are those who excite the target base.
It’s certainly fine by me that the GOP establishment squeeze out all but the most “polished” of their usual array of cutout candidates. But November taught us that movement conservatives, constitutionalists, and classical liberals appeal to the voting populace, and that they can — and in many cases did, against great odds — defeat the GOP’s “approved” candidate, much to the betterment of the Party’s makeup. Which makes marginalizing them before they’ve been given a chance to gain momentum a rather self-defeating strategy, it seems to me — unless, of course, the real strategy is to elect a certain kind of Republican, the kind that it is clear most conservatives and constitutionalists no longer prefer.
Nominations are bestowed by parties operating under rules and governed by committees, and parties that want to win important elections don’t waste time and money and especially argument space on marginal candidates like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, Alan Keyes or Dennis Kucinich or Tom Tancredo. That which gets rewarded gets repeated, and by rewarding two-percenters (those who score there or lower in national opinion polls) or extreme ideologues like Paul, we encourage more and more each year. They bring nothing to the stage except diversions of attention and false divisions exploited by a hostile media.
Which is just another way of saying, for instance, that Marco Rubio can’t win, so we need to get behind Charlie Christ!
The fact of the matter is, now is precisely the time to determine which potential candidates most appeal to target voters. “Two-percenters” can never grow beyond two-percenters without a chance to appeal to larger audiences, and I suspect that, among those who took the time to watch the debate, several of the “two-percenters” grew in stature.
To borrow from Hugh, “that which gets rewarded gets repeated”. As both the candidacies of John McCain and Bob Dole should have taught us. Me, I’d rather repeat the November 2010 elections than the November 2008 elections; which means I’m more interested in rewarding the TEA Party for finding solid candidates who might change the DC culture than I am in rewarding the GOP for desperately trying to maintain the status quo.
There is an uphill political battle to be won, a crucial, incredibly important battle. The GOP should not have to strap a bunch of can’t-wins on the party’s back as it climbs that hill for the benefit of the MSM or the very small number of enthusiasts who urge that the market decide what the market has already decided –that their guy cannot win.
Without the baggage of the TEA Party strapped to its back, the lithe and streamlined GOP emerged from the November 2008 elections telling us that we were in danger of becoming a regional party — that the way forward was embracing bigger government, green energy, and the bold pragmatism of a Barack Obama type.
— Which leads me to suggest that the GOP is better off with a bit of weight on its back. Because that weight, frankly, is the only thing that seems to be keeping it grounded.
It’s worth remembering that Hewitt is a member in good standing of Teh Media, and goes along with the common aim respecting Republicans, which is to select people who (A) can’t win, (B) will support Democratic-party initiatives, or (C) Both of the above (*koff* John *koff koff*).
The rule for the tea partiers should be: If anybody in the MSM, regardless of declared politics, supports a candidate, that candidate is anathema; and if anybody in the MSM starts attacking a candidate, that candidate is worth a close look, at least.
Regards,
Ric
Discuss at your leisure. I don’t intend to give Hugh’s position short shrift. I just think we’re well aware of the strategy, and most of us find it wanting — and have discussed why, in many ways, over the last several years.
I’m off to go food shopping and hit the Indian buffet with my family. Saag! One day it will rule the earth. Like the dinosaurs. Or George Soros.
I’d be more inclinded to listen to the establishment Republican line if, you know, THEY WERE ACTUALLY WINNING at what Republicans are supposed to be about.
But, as it is, listening to the George Wills of the world, who have been creatures of DC for literally decades, decades that have ONLY seen the hale and hearty GROWTH of nanny leviathan, well, let us just say that my tolerance for these sorts of lectures has grown thin.
You want to see Obama get a second term? Nominate Romneylenty Huckagrich.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Warmed-over 2008 also-rans need not apply.
If we’re going to exile candidates, that is a non-negotiable point.
Saag! One day it will rule the earth.
Well, that’s your inability to hold body weight problem right there. Sure there’s a ton of ghee hiding in all that spinach, but what you need is more protein.
Korma is where it’s at.
Indian cuisine esoterica for the day: Vindaloo originated in Portugal.
Well, that settles it for me; I don’t know why you all don’t see it.
Hewitt’s just trying to help all of us rube-ish know-nothings do what’s best for ourselves. He’s trying to keep us from making the mistake of wasting our vote for someone like Herman Cain, or another actual conservative when we could be unanimously nominating a sure winner like Mittenz or T-Paw.
He knows what’s good for us, and wants to save us from ourselves…
Sound familiar?
As I’ve said before, how about all of these elite commentators and staunch conservatives let the people decide who their nominee should be. And although open primaries do allow an element of subterfuge, deliberate or otherwise, well, until the states decide they all want closed primaries then we have to take it as it is.
Hewitt should stick to trying to sway the real conservatives at HotAir and Townhall instead of comin’ round the OUTLAW! side of town, ‘cuz we really mean what we say, and don’t cotton to the slickers telling us to, “vote in our interests”, whether it’s Barack Obama or Hugh Hewitt.
Slip and fall?
Call me.
the GOP is better off with a bit of weight on its back
A decent strap-on wouldn’t hurt, either.
Hugh?
Have you already forgotten how “electables” tend to behave once they’re in office?
Remember how you told us that Boehner was a good man and wouldn’t let himself get played?
Trouble with you, Hugh, is you actually know these people, in person, and they’re highly affable and likeable and when you’re talking with them about this and that they say exactly the right things.
Then they fold like cheap lawn chairs when it comes time to negotiate.
We don’t know these clowns personally. We don’t trust them from day one. We’ve adapted easily to the paradigm shift that the TEA Party presents because we don’t have years of experience in and around Washington.
We definitely appreciate the dressing-down you’ve been giving the Congresscritters in the past few months, but we wish you’d listen a little more to Steyn about the GOP apparatus’s inability to change its stripes and a lot less to your conventional wisdom.
We’re heading over the falls and the GOP doesn’t even hear the thunder. They’re useless and always will be.
Wake up.
Does Hewitt really believe after the McCain fiasco that conservatives are going to vote for Mittens or Paw Paw? If these are types of candidates are the best we can do, we are truly in serious trouble. I will never vote fot the likes of Mittens because of Romneycare and Paw Paw once was in love with cap and trade. Fiscal policy goes hand in hand with most social policy and these guys will compromise too much which will negate any fiscal policy.
Hugh is proably for Romney, followed by Pawlenty. He thinks those two probably have the best chance of winning in 2012. I am not sure about that, but that is where he is coming from. Pragmatism. Great.
At the same time, there is potential damage in a Ron Paul or Donald Trump possibly runing third party after participating in the GOP primaries. And I recognize that too. Which is why I would support the GOP making all candidates pledge not to run third party if they lose as a condition for being in the GOP primaries.
But if you prematurely decide: Herman Cain has no chance, that is a self fulfilling prophesy. Not only would that possibly piss off African Americans (yes some of them do vote GOP) but it would piss off a lot of conservatives who like Herman Cain. Even if Cain does not make it, the guy has some pretty good and pragmatic ideas and that may actually improve the chances of the candidate who prevails through the winnowing process of the primaries. And while I think some of these candidates have little chance of beating Barack Obama, there is something refreshing when you can have Rick Santorum debate policy issues with Gary Johnson in a GOP primary.
Garym, if Romney, Pawlenty, or Daneils win the primary process fair and square, I am going to hold my nose and vote for them over Barack Obama. Any of them is better, by far, then a second term of Obama.
But if the primary process is rigged, then I would have second thoughts about participating in such a charade. We may be (pleasantly) surprised by who survives and prevails in a open fair primary process.
I think one problem some of these folks have is thinking independants are all somewhere inbetween Democrats and Republicans on the spectrum.
We are not.
Hugh sounds like he wants to bring back the smoky back room power brokers.
Anyway, I will not vote for Romney.
Third party for me if Romney is the GOP nominee.
Ummmmmm,
My barrier to entry is that “No Marxist with jug ears may be sponsored or elected”.
Especially if they are not white. (YUP! I am your classic racist! Because, who knew? The color don’t matter, but because I think Obama is an absolute stupid fudging shit head, I am a racist! I revel in it, thank you.)
HO! HO! HO!
HO! Fucking HO!
HO! HO! FUDGING HO!
HO! Fucking HO!
Now maybe it’s just because I chugged about 8 shots of Captain Morgan’s to lighten my shitty mood, but I think I’m not the only one who’s piss ass drunk.
NTTAWWT. Carry on.
Third party for me if Romney is the GOP nominee.
Hell I was plan on voting for Ron Paul all along. Not cuz I love the dude, I’m no crazy paulbot… just cuz.
Except y’know if someone else who’s also crazy stands a shot. Palin, maybe this Cain guy, or this Johnson guy, or maybe Santorum.
Also except the part where you vote, cuz voting is for fags. I live in IL anyway, I’m not eligible on account of not being dead yet.
How did you like the Perot administration, Blake?
Allow me to give you some extreme ideology, Hugh, just so we’re more or less on the same page before we discuss electing a guy just because he’s got no D following his name and in the media’s view, can beat Teh President.
I assume that’s the game. (Oh, and what Ric and Bob and dicentra said, more or less. We’ve been through this.)
We live in a country where (under only vestigal constitutional principles) we somehow have a hundred trillion dollar hole in federal medicine called unpaid obligations. This is because of the looting in public office. This is not being addressed in any substantial political circle.
We live in a country where we beseech our federal masters to kick us back some of our own money so we can seek an alternative to their government schools. Those schools cost double to do an inferior job and churn out endless millions of intellectual misfits. This is because of the corruption in public office. This is not being addressed in any substantial political circle.
We live in a country where we’re forced under pain of tax law into a tragically misnamed retirement program called Social Security that has also been looted, this time for fifteen trillion dollars. This is also because of looting in public office. This is barely being addressed, anywhere.
We live in a country where our Wilson-era progressive monetary system, whether by design or happenstance, is by its management indistinguishable from the President’s and Democratic Party’s essentially Marxist operations and the Treasury’s compliance with them, that system inexorably transferring the nation’s wealth onto its own balance sheet and those of its cronies, there being no other way to stave off a monetary collapse than to continually hyperstimulate the federal addict. This is because of the corruption and arrogance and theft by a relative few. This is not being addressed by an electable candidate. Either.
And you want to what? Call a crotchety old libertarian names because he sees these things? Do I hear you folding and then consciously promoting the candidate who can buy us, say, a handful of years? When the guy you just smeared is at least right on domestic issues?
Kindly explain how when the Republican status quo is so saturated with policy FAIL and the national patient is so assured of half a dozen kinds of death you still find value in winnowing down the field to only those few morons who best play the game that’s quite evidently ruining us.
If your interest is only that handful of years, you may want to reconsider. Likewise if it’s that you’re unaware of our national condition. Is there a third justification for running a McCain or electing a Romney I’m not aware of?
And I am no fan of Romney, so don’t bother with that accusation.
What JHoward said. Also, Herman Cain. But lately his Chairmanship of the Kansas City Fed and his disinterest in a Fed audit have me conflicted.
Back to the electability thing. Ron Paul, bless his fiscally responsible soul, is not electable. The Hermanator is considerably more electable, and sounds like he gets it. But does he?
To GOP insiders Bachmann and Palin are non-starters, too.
Which means that to the establishment GOP, no conservatives are electable, and therefore need be exiled. Unless somebody wants to dig up Zombie Reagan.
I mean, seriously: they think Gingrich has a shot but Cain doesn’t?
Cuckoo!
I voted for McCain in ’08, albeit grudgingly. Mostly because I was assured by all the right people that he was so very old that within moments of taking office he’d be dead and “that idiot Palin” would’ve found herself in the Oval Office — which was and is a desirable end-goal for me.
Anyway, I’m convinced that having Barry win in ’08 was the best thing that ever happened to us conservative/classic liberal/libertarian types. If McCain had won, we’d be every bit as DOOMED! as we are now (“quite a bit”), except that the Tea Party wouldn’t necessarily exist, and we wouldn’t be having serious conversations about not raising the debt limit, and cutting hundreds of billions (if not $1.6T) from the federal budget right now, not 10 years down the line.
To that end, I’m far more interested in voting for a ‘crazy’ outsider (Palin, Bachman, Cain, Paul) who understands that the system is fundamentally broken, and no amount of fiddling around the edges of the problem is going to do more than prolong the agony — even if they “can’t” win. And I don’t believe that for a moment.
I’d hold my nose and vote for a Romney/Pawlenty establishment critter, just because “you have to vote against Obama”, if that’s the only choice. But if one of my preferred candidates is running 3rd party, they’re getting my vote in the general. To hell with the GOP, and I don’t care if that leads to another term for Obama — given a choice between Thick’n’Zesty Democract Socialism and a Weak-Tea Republican Socialism, I’m choosing some 3rd-party Hardly Any Socialism, thank you very much!
…enthusiasts who urge that the market decide what the market has already decided –that their guy cannot win.
What market has already decided that someone can’t win? Give this noun a Proper name or two, please. A poll? Pundit, please. It’s only 2011.
While it’s strategically important to have barriers and gate keepers in the finals, an open field in the beginning is nothing to be afraid of.
I sense it in Hugh’s words and those of others: please don’t elect an idiot, and please let me tell you who is an idiot because I live by my writing and access=paycheck and I want sweet, sweet access and anyone who doesn’t respect me and know me might not give me the sweet access I crave.
Yes, that is a “market” all right, but it isn’t one that is selflessly interested in what’s best for the country.
Right. So, fuck them. They don’t decide, voters decide.
If we can’t win the party, we can’t win the country. It’s a little early yet to be picking the best nominee, but if it’s Cain, then goddamnit, it’s Cain. So far, that’s how it looks from here. Unless he does something stupid, or somebody more irresistible jumps in, I’ll be going all in like that. Hugh Hewitt is not the bo… oh, wait. Redundant. Nevermind.
Christ. Check out Intrade. Top 5, in descending order: Romney, Pawlenty, Daniels, Huckabee, Huntsman.
Oy.
Those schools cost double to do an inferior job and churn out endless millions of intellectual misfits.
Viz:
“But lately his Chairmanship of the Kansas City Fed and his disinterest in a Fed audit have me conflicted. ”
it might be best to hit low hanging fruit(epa, fcc, hhs et al) then mid level fruit(ss, medicare et al) then on to the heart of proggdom – the fed.
Oy is right. The left/right divide is less important to the ruling class than the ruling class/subject divide.
“Oy.”
buy cain
A horse is a horse, of course, of course, except the ‘party’ won’t back em. The ‘party’ is prefers asses.
Right. And the GOP for too long has been banking on being significantly less insane than the Democrats. Which is true, but as you’ve noticed endlessly is only losing more slowly.
It’s time we fought, time we had it right out. We need a good old fashioned ass kicking. Are we all waking up yet, or must we hit the wall? Which, I’m not optimistic that we can still avoid it. Whatever. Time to start fixing things.
Damn, accidentally hit the wrong key and prematurely posted.
A horse is a horse, of course, of course, except the ‘party’ won’t back em. The ‘party’ prefers asses. They probably bet on “Dialed In” for the win!
If Hugh had a clue, he might consider something before suggesting on Derby Day to bet on the favorite. Animal Kingdom would have never posted today, if Hugh was in charge… just sayin.
about the fed: i’m not going with the paultards on this one. bernakee has been a disaster but that was a bush/messiah/ruling class thing. cain was at the kc div. of the fed where he could do squat about their policy.
we have to hit the low hanging fruit like abolishing the epa. see this thread volokh:
Gov’t Panel to Propose Fracking Rules
if we are prevented from producing wealth, then just say good night no?
Assume it’s this time in 2007. Who’s laying money on Barack Obama? Hillary was a lock. Sure, the GOP doesn’t have
SupervotersSuper Delegates, but still. Shit happens, sometimes on purpose.Worse yet, Pablo. How many in the GOP party ranks were hoping against hope to go up against that lightweight Obama instead of Hillary who they were deathly afraid of?
Suckers.
I can’t believe out of a country with 330 million, I mean 300 million legal citizens, we can’t find a couple of decent candidates to run.
I dunno, Steph. I participated in Operation Chaos, based on the fact that at least Hillary wouldn’t be Obama. Either of them were going to steamroll McCain. He probably thought he’d have a better chance against the lad, though.
Frankly last cycle Hillary or Obama would have taken it. Forget about McCain. Romney and Huckabee never had a chance. Hillary would have won the general with a greater margin.
But Obama took out Hillary, which was surprising.
That does not mean a conservative could not have won in 2008, it is just that none ran (other than Duncan Hunter who went nowhere in the primaries and Fred Thompson, but Fred more walking leisurely).
Frum Forum asked why Tim Pawlenty was paired in a debate with a bunch of crazies, so I guess Hugh is on board with the Frumster.
Meanwhile Chuck E. Cheezejohnson claims they were all crazy.
I think it’s just ridiculous to send somebody up against Obama who couldn’t even beat the guy Obama beat in 2008. Just because Obama is damaged goods now, doesn’t mean we send damaged goods up against him.
How did Huntsman get into the top five? Bunch of retards over there??
“How did Huntsman get into the top five? Bunch of retards over there??”
just means the same folks who gave you mccain/huckabee/romney 2008 are in control of the gop narrative.
I say we run the one they hate the most, the anti-Obama: Sarah Palin, and let the chips fall where they may. I’m tired of dicking around with these lamers. If we’re so destined to lose, why, let’s lose with a game face.
what serr8d said. do
McCAIN/PALIN 2012Nice way to buy into that narrative, no offense, but to hear Fred tell it, he was all over the country doing meet and greets and vigorously campaigning, but the media ignored him and started the ‘lazy doesn’t really want to run meme.’
And what serr8d said… Palin/Cain 2012. ;)
Awesome slogan for either ticket would be ‘Raising Cain in DC in 2012’
I think an anti-Obama anti-Kyle Busch platform would be very successful.
“but the media ignored him and started the ‘lazy doesn’t really want to run meme.’ ”
they lost that after ’08. we know their stuff now. 2010 proved it. it is pw, rsm et al forward.
as far as cain/palin: let us kick ass either way.
Harvick may just kick Busch’s ass tonight.
Busch needs his ass kicked. A lot. And some more. But Harvick? Takes an ass to kick an ass, I guess.
Oh, Harvick is an ass too, but he ought to shove his helmet up Kyle’s ass. What a bitch. Did you see Kyle running away, then hitting the 29 while fleeing, after pissing himself?
Eggzactly. We’re standing on the edge staring into the fiscal abyss and what did the very electible John Boehner get us? A $352 million cut to the FY2011 budget. Instead of running up a $1.6 trillion deficit we’ll be running up a.. Yes, $1.6 trillion deficit. But it was a Great Victory(!) for fiscal conservatism, just ask them.
This is what we’ll continue to get if we bow to the would-be kingmakers of the establishment GOP, another very electible candidate in the mold of Bob Dole, John McCain, and John Boehner who’d be worthless as tits on a boar if he did accidentally get elected.
No, I came into the den after it was over and saw the post race report. I’m living in the sewing room right now. We couldn’t find a prom dress the wee one liked, so I got tasked with altering a pattern that was close enough (general outlines are approximately the same, the rest….hahahaha) and making one. If it blows up in my face, I’ll be face down in a big assed margarita glass. Then I guess we will be off to the stores to see what’s left.
Oh, and the Rondo thing… shudder. Shades of Theismann but without any blood. Yuck.
Ttiweh was I ere I saw Hewitt.
I recall knowing about Palin long before McCain desperately used her. It was mostly one blogger who kept her name in blog rounds, kept promoting her many successes in the Alaskan legislature, and promoted her to the attention of someone who noticed. It’s not Palin’s fault that McCain’s team hated her, and it doesn’t hurt her creds amongst the Tea Party to be savaged by a bunch of D.C.insider RINOs and their mincing help.
The immediate and visceral reaction to the common sense that Palin exudes tells me everything I need to know about a person, pundit, or Media puke. I don’t know if she’s the one to beat Obama now that the mindless voting public has succumbed to the MSM strafing of her, I don’t know if I’d put her forth, but the idea of her is the shibboleth barrier I have erected to filter out the mewling noises of the born-again (no, really, we mean it this time!) RINOs and their pundits.
Smoke, I’ll go right to calling you a jackass, okay?
I will not forgive or forget Romneycare. You know, the legislation Obamacare was modeled on?
I’ve held my nose long enough with the GOP.
I will not vote for the “electable not quite as socialist as Obama” GOP candidate.
And that’s a longer answer than you deserve.
Joe,
I think there are some amazing people who would make great presidents among the US population.
However, those same people just are not willing to put up with all the crap that goes with getting elected.
Stephanie: I still have the Fred Thomspon for President bumpersticker and donated to his campaign. I followed his candidacy pretty closely. Fred did not have the fire to really run–and as a result never got any traction. Which is a shame because that quality is what would have made Fred a great president.
It is too bad.
And I am with Serr8d, if we are so destined to lose, let’s go down swinging. But if we have a fair primary process and allow candidates to rise and fall in such a process, my prediction is we will get the best candidate that way. I would love to see Sarah Palin win just to hears thousands of lefty heads start popping (like you were tap dancing on bubblewrap). But in a head to head, I think Cain would be the better candidate.
Blake, I agree 100%. That question was more rhetorical.
Huntsman? Who put up that money at Intrade? Huntsman?
Does your moral masturbation really feel that good, Blake?
Some of us prefer masturbation to taking it up the ass, even from a friend.
Smoke,
If I might paraphrase Mr. Hewitt: That which gets rewarded gets repeated, and by rewarding unprincipled party pols who promise to lose gracefully, we encourage more and more each year.
What you so eloquently and diplomatically refer to as “moral masturbation,” people like me call “training the puppy.” In 2008, we stayed home in response to a big-government candidate in GOP clothing. In 2010, we turned out in droves to elect small-government Tea Party types. If the GOP had half a brain between the lot of ’em, they’d pick up on that pattern and stop nominating Democrat-Lite beltway drones! But no — these jeeniuses refuse to believe the evidence before them, and so they’ll continue to get swatted until they learn to stop peeing on the carpet.
If I stay home (or vote third-party ) in response to stupid decisions made by Party apparatchiks out-of-touch with their constituents, it’s not because I want to claim some moral high ground — it’s because I refuse to reward failure. It’s the only way I can see that we’ll have a chance to change this country’s direction before it’s too late (assuming it isn’t already).
Smoke, you’ve graduated to asshole.
After I called you a jackass, asshole, I gave you my reason why I won’t vote Romney.
Whereas the best you can do, Smoke, is make snide little remarks without making a compelling case for Romney.
In short, you got nothing.
Romney?! really?! Is someone trying to ensure that I do not write checks, or vote?
Is somebody sockpuppeting one of our regulars?
[…] Party über alles. Or, as Jeff puts it: “…Marco Rubio can’t win, so we need to get behind Charlie Christ!” […]