Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Founded by Mark Kleiman (1951-2019)
Marco Rubio? For President? Good luck with that!
Watch John Kerry take the latest neocon poster child to school.
The latest neocon poster child gets an unforgettable lesson from John Kerry. Just watch Rubio’s face. Utterly, totally, unmistakably clueless.
This reminds me of Bill Richardson’s story about his mother’s response when Richardson  told her he was planning to run for President.
“¿Presidente? ¿De que?”
I think Kristol & Co. ought to stick with Tom Cotton.Â
Author: Mark Kleiman
Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out.
Books:
Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken)
When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The EconomistAgainst Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993)
Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989)
UCLA HomepageCurriculum Vitae
Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com
View all posts by Mark Kleiman
4 thoughts on “Marco Rubio? For President? Good luck with that!”
Rubio will not pay a price for this level of ignorance. Conservatives do not care about all that intellectual stuff about who is a Sunni and who is a Shiite and how Iran is at war with ISIS and the actual likely consequences of bombing Iran. These distinctions are needed for leaders who want to make wise rather than unwise decisions. But conservatives do not care about wise versus unwise; they care about tough versus soft, which is why they love Ben Carson and Rick Perry and Sarah Palin and the others like them. Tough, meaning a willingness to kill lots of people, is what they look for. Wisdom is for wimps like Obama.
What I meant is that wise men do statecraft; real men kick ass.
I won't say Rubio has covered himself in glory here, and there are some aspects of the puppy visible, but overall I have to say I've seen much worse. Kerry conducted himself reasonably well, with only some condescension being apparent, rather than loads of it. Which is nice. I don't like to see that kind of petty b.s. with the name-dropping. Here, Kerry only does it enough to show he has in fact met these people, which is his job, so all well and good.
But Mark, I think you're being a tad snarky, since Kerry's position isn't ironclad either. On what planet can we claim to be in charge of whether or not Iran ends up with a nuke? It is a sovereign country. I wish I understood it better — f.e., what is the historical and emotional root of their issues with Israel? I do not know this, and would like to. Though Shia, they aren't even Arabs for heaven's sake, and they are miles away. What is up with that? It is one thing to feel for regular Joe Palestinians — I do, myself, even as I support Israel too — but that alone wouldn't get them to where they are.
Wasn't there a guy from Pakistan that basically gave away all the secret tech? AQ Khan or something like that? So essentially now, we think we can babysit everyone on the planet to make sure they don't get nukes? Mind you … I support the goal of running around and doing all this diplomacy, to try to prevent more nukes — but let's not pretend we have either the moral right to do it, or that it will necessarily work. I hope it does, but…
Meanwhile also, how come we don't just make a deal with Iran? If they promise to lay off Israel, and stop funding Hezbollah (with a multiyear phase out so those guys have time to find jobs…), and promise (with verifications and inspections etc) not to go for a nuke, that *we*, the US, will not attack or invade them, is that something that might go somewhere?
In short, is it *fear* that is behind their actions? It is a shame that Congress has so many idiots, but at least we have a smart president. He probably knows the answers to my questions. I wonder why no one wants to share.
"Tough, meaning a willingness to kill lots of people"
Rubio will not pay a price for this level of ignorance. Conservatives do not care about all that intellectual stuff about who is a Sunni and who is a Shiite and how Iran is at war with ISIS and the actual likely consequences of bombing Iran. These distinctions are needed for leaders who want to make wise rather than unwise decisions. But conservatives do not care about wise versus unwise; they care about tough versus soft, which is why they love Ben Carson and Rick Perry and Sarah Palin and the others like them. Tough, meaning a willingness to kill lots of people, is what they look for. Wisdom is for wimps like Obama.
What I meant is that wise men do statecraft; real men kick ass.
I won't say Rubio has covered himself in glory here, and there are some aspects of the puppy visible, but overall I have to say I've seen much worse. Kerry conducted himself reasonably well, with only some condescension being apparent, rather than loads of it. Which is nice. I don't like to see that kind of petty b.s. with the name-dropping. Here, Kerry only does it enough to show he has in fact met these people, which is his job, so all well and good.
But Mark, I think you're being a tad snarky, since Kerry's position isn't ironclad either. On what planet can we claim to be in charge of whether or not Iran ends up with a nuke? It is a sovereign country. I wish I understood it better — f.e., what is the historical and emotional root of their issues with Israel? I do not know this, and would like to. Though Shia, they aren't even Arabs for heaven's sake, and they are miles away. What is up with that? It is one thing to feel for regular Joe Palestinians — I do, myself, even as I support Israel too — but that alone wouldn't get them to where they are.
Wasn't there a guy from Pakistan that basically gave away all the secret tech? AQ Khan or something like that? So essentially now, we think we can babysit everyone on the planet to make sure they don't get nukes? Mind you … I support the goal of running around and doing all this diplomacy, to try to prevent more nukes — but let's not pretend we have either the moral right to do it, or that it will necessarily work. I hope it does, but…
Meanwhile also, how come we don't just make a deal with Iran? If they promise to lay off Israel, and stop funding Hezbollah (with a multiyear phase out so those guys have time to find jobs…), and promise (with verifications and inspections etc) not to go for a nuke, that *we*, the US, will not attack or invade them, is that something that might go somewhere?
In short, is it *fear* that is behind their actions? It is a shame that Congress has so many idiots, but at least we have a smart president. He probably knows the answers to my questions. I wonder why no one wants to share.
"Tough, meaning a willingness to kill lots of people"
Well, to hire it done.