Senator Marco Rubio now FAVORS a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants!

[^_^ 5,021]

The Democratic vision is winning. Elections have consequences.

Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan Move Toward Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Two of the GOP’s brightest stars are publicly backing a broad vision for comprehensive immigration reform, lending possible momentum to the White House’s efforts to pass a bill this year.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is currently working with a group of Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to craft legislation ... Rubio told the Wall Street Journal that ... his broader plan resembles the general framework favored by most Democrats and immigration reformers: a path to citizenship, increased visas for high-tech workers, a system for bringing in temporary agricultural workers, and a crackdown on employers who hire undocumented workers.

...

He made clear that the legislation he had in mind would strive to ensure that the undocumented population is not left in legal limbo indefinitely. Given that Rubio has toyed with bills that might have stopped short of citizenship before, this is a significant move. And the types of requirements he mentioned might be necessary to gain permanent residency and eventually citizenship — such as passing a criminal background check, paying a fine and back taxes — sounded largely in line with Democratic proposals.

...

"It’s not good for our country to have people trapped in this status forever," Rubio said. "It’s been a disaster for Europe."

In another significant development, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), announced on Facebook that he agreed with Rubio’s proposal.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Saw that yesterday. Also, did you see that George P. Bush is getting into Texas politics? The Bush Compassionate Conservative wing of the Republican party is beginning to make a resurgence.

Edited January 15, 2013 by The Patriot

[^_^ 5,021]

The Bush Compassionate Conservative wing of the Republican party is beginning to make a resurgence.

Good.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If he doesn't drop this soon, the Tea Party crazies will primary Marco the Socialist in 2016.

[^_^ 5,021]

If he doesn't drop this soon, the Tea Party crazies will primary Marco the Socialist in 2016.

The Tea Party has served its purpose. They're of no use to the establishment GOP anymore.

If the interests that comprised the Tea Party wish to remain relevant, they will need to form a third party. I predict they sweep the rural south and appalachia in 2016 leaving the two main parties to fight over the sane parts of the country. It's a win-win for everyone.

Edited January 15, 2013 by ^_^

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[quote name=' timestamp='1358215679' post='5922237]The Tea Party has served its purpose. They're of no use to the establishment GOP anymore.

If the interests that comprised the Tea Party wish to remain relevant, they will need to form a third party. I predict they sweep the rural south and appalachia in 2016 leaving the two main parties to fight over the sane parts of the country. It's a win-win for everyone.

If that happens, Republicans will regret ever having adopted this freak movement. A separate party on the far right would dramatically increase the odds for Democrats to sweep statewide contests all over the map and even take some gerrymandered Republican districts. If you split the vote right of center while leaving the left of center vote intact in a block, then it's all but lights out for the right.

[^_^ 5,021]

If that happens, Republicans will regret ever having adopted this freak movement. A separate party on the far right would dramatically increase the odds for Democrats to sweep statewide contests all over the map and even take some gerrymandered Republican districts. If you split the vote right of center while leaving the left of center vote intact in a block, then it's all but lights out for the right.

Don't underestimate the "we hate drones" types on the left. There's plenty of room for an insurgent party on the left. It would be strong in New England and the PacNW.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[quote name=' timestamp='1358217012' post='5922283]Don't underestimate the "we hate drones" types on the left. There's plenty of room for an insurgent party on the left. It would be strong in New England and the PacNW.

Then things would get interesting. We'd more than likely be governed by minority governments.

[Danno 1,228]

Then things would get interesting. We'd more than likely be governed by minority governments.

And isn't that what all these folks keep saying....We need more than just two parties?

We'll see how that works out when the whitehouse is manned (or womaned) by a person who only got 30% of the vote.

[^_^ 5,021]

And isn't that what all these folks keep saying....We need more than just two parties?

We'll see how that works out when the whitehouse is manned (or womaned) by a person who only got 30% of the vote.

The PV doesn't matter though, that's not how we elect Presidents in this country. You do know that... don't you?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And isn't that what all these folks keep saying....We need more than just two parties?

We'll see how that works out when the whitehouse is manned (or womaned) by a person who only got 30% of the vote.

If we ever have more than two relevant parties, we'd have to also re-consider the "winner takes all" MO in elections. Because if we don't, we could indeed end up with government at all levels that has the support only of a small minority.

[^_^ 5,021]

If we ever have more than two relevant parties, we'd have to also re-consider the "winner takes all" MO in elections. Because if we don't, we could indeed end up with government at all levels that has the support only of a small minority.

Who is this 'we' you speak of?

Every state gets to decide how they apportion their electoral votes.

Some states may wish to keep their winner-takes-all method and I would think that any federal interference in that would be an unacceptable violation of our federal principles.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[quote name=' timestamp='1358222142' post='5922451]

Who is this 'we' you speak of?

Every state gets to decide how they apportion their electoral votes.

Some states may wish to keep their winner-takes-all method and I would think that any federal interference in that would be an unacceptable violation of our federal principles.

It's not just the President. It's governors and legislatures - state and national - as well. Just over a third of the country - or just over a quarter if we have 4 parties - could end up governing he country. That would be unsustainable in the long run. "We" were still the people. Not that the people actually matter anymore as it is.

[Danno 1,228]

[quote name=' timestamp='1358221600' post='5922429]

The PV doesn't matter though, that's not how we elect Presidents in this country. You do know that... don't you?

Yeah but you are taking comfort in an accounting method that works ... I am referring to the political instability that would be wide spread if a consolidated 25% dominated.

It's for this reason I don't bemoan the two party system... warts and all.

[^_^ 5,021]

Yeah but you are taking comfort in an accounting method that works ... I am referring to the political instability that would be wide spread if a consolidated 25% dominated.

Allow me to flesh my thoughts out on this a bit more. I don't for a minute believe that a 4-party system would get "consolidated". At most, it will be a relatively short transitional period between two longer two-party periods. So what really changes? Not the number of parties but the character of the two parties. This has happened before so it's not exactly a radical idea.