-By Gary Krasner

Is Rubio a conservative? “Compared to what?” as Henny Youngman would ask. And he’s right. Everything is relative.

Which is why I was jolted when Rush Limbaugh seemed to say during his Feb. 2 show that Rubio is a conservative no different than Ted Cruz. Rush visited the topic the next day, too.

But then Rush is a pushover. He knows his fellow Floridian personally and I suspect he feels it would be a betrayal to cast him out. Rush was a good soldier for President G.W. Bush, if you recall. Because Rush is a nice guy. Loyal to friends. He’s not like Michael Medved, for example, who calls Ted Cruz a self-interested political opportunist, and lauds people like John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Oren Hatch, and had actually supported Mitt Romney as his first choice.

Given the folks Medved has loved for years, it’s no surprise to me that Marco Rubio is his preferred candidate. But Rush considers Rubio sufficiently conservative, and distinct from John Kasich or Jeb Bush?! The man from Realville? It doesn’t compute.



Where is the Divide?

It took big spending G.W. Bush, and Obama as POTUS, for the Conservative grass roots to realize that the Republican leadership were not conservative. The Tea Party knew it. Rush knew it. When Republican leadership never battled Obama on the debt; on immigration; on Islamic Supremacism; on replacing Obamacare, the lines were drawn between faux establishment conservatives, and the anti-establishment insurgents.

And we see the wrath of the insurgents now in the presidential campaign. It looks like Ted Cruz is rightly the anti-establishment’s guy. And Trump is the guy favored by the low-information, non-voters, whom Trump hopes will vote this year.

Trump is their man because they like his defiant demeanor, and his gutter language. And many of them share Trump’s most obvious attribute: Trump is ignorant about government, politics, and the law. The best evidence on how he arrived at political positions on immigration was by sticking his finger in the wind. There’s no evidence that he sincerely became a conservative, suddenly, in 2015 when he announced his candidacy. You’re more likely to see John McCain, Mitch McConnell, or John Boehner hold a press conference tomorrow to explain supply-side economics than see a President Trump exhibit any understanding of it–and economics is supposedly his strong point.

Trump is also an unsophisticated thug to boot. When Ben Carson was closing in on his lead in Iowa in November, Trump put out ads suggesting Carson was a homicidal psychopath. After Trump came in second in the Iowa caucuses, he accused Cruz of election fraud–without specifics, let alone evidence–and stealing votes from Carson. Yes, the same Carson Trump had slandered in November.

But while Trump isn’t a conservative, he’s attracting support from people who call themselves conservatives, making Trump a populist anti-establishment candidate.

And what about Rubio, the man who came in third in Iowa, closely behind Trump? What is he? Rubio is clearly a national security hawk, in league with the Republican RINOs running the party. That would be, for the most part, the aforementioned accommodationist (with Democrats) figures, who didn’t fight Democrats on the debt, on immigration; on Islamic Supremacism (civilizational jihad), and on replacing Obamacare.

Rubio’s Second Test

We all know that Rubio was a member of the gang of 8 and has always been a “demographic transformation” politician. That was his first test as an anti-establishment Republican. But does anyone recall that Rubio attacked the gang of 5 in July 2012?

That’s right. Immigration was not the sole bellwether for the anti-establishment Republicans, where Rubio chose the wrong side. The 5 brave Republican Congress members were Michelle Bachmann, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Thomas Rooney, and Lynn Westmoreland. Their letter to State, Homeland Security, Defense and Justice Departments had requested an investigation into potential “policies and activities that appear to be the result of influence operations conducted by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.” They noted that State Department recently has taken actions that benefit the Brotherhood.

Additional correspondence by the 5 had questioned how Huma Abedin–Secretary Clinton’s long-time aid and deputy chief of staff at State–had obtained a security clearance despite her late father’s, mother’s and brother’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Abedin’s father, Syed Z. Abedin, founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, an organization supported by the Muslim World League, a Brotherhood organization. Her mother, Saleha Mahmoud Abedin, is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood.

Huma was not suspect by familial associations alone–although that’s been enough to deny one national security clearance. She herself was the assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs in the late 90s. The Egyptian newspaper was pro shariah law and favored stealth jihad–the very concerns expressed by the gang of 5.

Well, the establishment Republicans rallied in support of Abedin. People like John Boehner, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham denounced the gang of 5 for just asking those reasonable questions, as part of their oversight responsibilities, let’s not forget. And freshman senator Marco Rubio joined the establishment voices.

He told National Public Radio that he believes Abedin is a patriotic American. “I don’t share the feelings that are in that letter from anything I’ve seen or heard. In fact, I’m very, very careful and cautious about ever making accusations like that about anybody.”

Except no accusations were made. Just reasonable observations and questions. Unlike Ted Cruz’s acts of courage and independence against the “get along, go along” Republican leaders, Freshman Senator Rubio had an opportunity to distinguish himself, and he utterly failed.

Rubio’s Third Test

Rubio was elected to the US Senate in 2010. He was therefore the beneficiary of 20-20 hindsight with respect to the folly of democracy building in Muslim majority nations where democratic institutions–and more importantly, freedom of conscience–are are not just alien concepts, but are antithetical to Sharia Law, which is the legal framework integral to Islam.

In 2011, Obama and Hillary wanted to remove Muammar Gaddafi from power in Libya. This, despite Libya acting as our ally and Gaddafi’s valuable assistance in helping the US fight al Qaeda. The usual neocons in the Republican leadership–like dumdum McCain and Graham–supported Obama’s illegal war, which had no Congressional support. Obama’s “Responsibility to Protect” Doctrine was no less shortsighted than the Bush Doctrine: The former eschewed nation-building and any effort to ensure the takeover by Islamists, while the latter allowed the replacement regime to retain governance of Sharia law in their Constitutions. Both proved folly.

Yet it was an undertaking Marco Rubio joined McCain in supporting. Rubio just wanted the foolish policy to be Constitutional. Rubio said that any Senate resolution backing the use of force in Libya must stipulate that “removing Muammar Gaddafi from power is in our national interest and … authorize the President to accomplish that goal.”

In total ignorance of knowing whether or not the rebels in Libya were jihadists, making Obama’s military operation against our national interests, Rubio laid out his support for the coup to the National Review on February 24, 2011:

Unfortunately, the administration’s initial response has been inadequate. Instead of taking the initiative, the administration is relying on other countries and international bodies to lead. For example, it makes no sense to rely on the United Nations Human Rights Council, a body that has long been comprised of and even led by some of the world’s worst human-rights abusers, including Libya… [Measures the U.S. can take with partners] could include (but are not limited to) pressing bordering nations to stop the flow of mercenaries into Libya, finding ways to restore severed communications, imposing a no-fly zone to protect civilians against aircraft attacks, and mobilizing a humanitarian relief effort.



And Rubio didn’t learn from his own folly of opposing dictators and enabling the far worse jihadists taking power. Rubio and McCain were big supporters of arming “rebels” to topple Bashar al-Assad. Who exactly were the “rebels”? Who cares? Neocons don’t care about the national security consequences of military intervention.

The Tea Party–insurgents against the establishment Republicans–got Rubio elected senator. He has not reciprocated. He became a John McCain Republican as soon as he arrived in DC. Rush Limbaugh, please take notice.