The Thursday edition of the Morning Jolt features a contrast in government tours, helpful words from a critical reader, and then the big news of the day . . .

Rand Paul Goes to Washington

Rand Paul added a lot of big fans Wednesday.

A day that was supposed to be just another Washington snow day brought us something we haven’t seen in a long time: an honest-to-goodness, in-keeping-with-the-Constitution, old-fashioned filibuster, all over a basic, fundamental concept central to our founding: the power of the central government is limited, and the government’s authority to exercise lethal force must be particularly and specifically limited.

Actual headline in USA Today: “Rand Paul ends epic filibuster over Brennan”

He started speaking around 11:45 a.m. Wednesday morning. He finally ceded the floor at about 12:40 a.m. local time on Thursday.

Andrew Johnson & Nathaniel Botwinick give you the highlights of Rand Paul’s crusade:

Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) took to the Senate floor today to filibuster President Obama’s nominee for CIA director, John Brennan, as well as to challenge the administration’s policy on drones. Paul began speaking at approximately 11:47 a.m. . . .

Paul said he would be happy to end it if he had reassurance from the Obama administration that drone-strikes would not be used on noncombatants. After Reid left the floor, senators Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and John Cornyn of Texas joined in the effort.

Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) took to the floor of the Senate this afternoon in support of Senator Paul. He thanked the senator for “defending the institution” of the Senate and its “constitutional obligation to ask relevant questions of public policy and get answers” through his filibuster.

The filibuster became a bipartisan effort when Oregon’s Democratic senator Ron Wyden joined Paul on the floor in its fourth hour. Wyden called for reining in the executive branch’s “serious, far-reaching” drone-strike program, saying that the targeted killings “should not be allowed . . . without any scrutiny.”

Three hours into Paul’s filibuster, fellow Republican senator Ted Cruz of Texas joined the Kentucky senator on the floor. Cruz praised Paul for his leadership on the issue of drones and the rights of American citizens, calling him a “modern Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” who is “surely making Jimmy Stewart smile.” Along with Cruz, senators Mike Lee of Utah and Jerry Moran of Kansas joined Paul on the floor at roughly the same time.

John Podhoretz: “Attention everybody in Washington: This is how you make yourself a star.”

Writing at Breitbart, the Ace of Spades declared it genuinely exciting:

I have the same feeling of receding cynicism I did when the Tea Party first exploded on to the scene and began doing things that just weren’t done in America anymore — taking politics seriously, taking the Founders’ legacy to us seriously, showing up at Town Halls to ask their once and future representatives some real questions, engaging, questioning, insisting, demanding.

There was a time 200 years ago when this was commonplace. Americans had just won their liberty and were enthused about it. They treated their civic duty not as a mere duty but as the highest aspiration of political man.

This filibuster excites me for the same reasons — a return to the Old Ways, the ways that actually work, the way American politics is actually supposed to be conducted, with Senators offering thoughtful defenses of their positions and, above all, insisting that this nation is We the People not We the Ministers & Lesser Bureaucratic Warlords of Whatever Current Government the Public Has Had the Folly to Install in Office.

Jon Henke: “Kinda shocking that it takes a filibuster to get back the right not to be killed by our own government without a trial.”

Dana Loesch: “The left just exposed their hypocrisy on waterboarding by supporting drone killing without due process.”

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz generated his own fireworks, getting Eric Holder to appear to concur that the drone policy, as currently stated, runs afoul of the Constitution.

On Tuesday, the Department of Justice sent shockwaves through the nation when Attorney General Eric Holder informed Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in writing that the White House would be within its legal authority to execute an American citizen via drone on U.S. soil if that person was determined to pose a threat to national security. On Wednesday, testifying before a Senate panel, Holder was prodded repeatedly about this assertion by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Holder eventually admitted that it would not be constitutional to execute an American citizen without due process.

“In your legal judgment, does the Constitution allow a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil to be killed by a drone?” Cruz asked Holder pointedly.

“For sitting in a café and having a cup of coffee?” Holder replied. Cruz clarified that his hypothetical individual subject to a drone strike did not pose an “imminent and immediate threat of death and bodily harm,” but that person is suspected to be a terrorist.

“I would not think that that would be an appropriate use of any kind of lethal force,” Holder replied.

“With all respect, Gen. Holder, my question wasn’t about appropriateness or prosecutorial discretion. It was a simple legal question,” Cruz clarified.

“This is a hypothetical, but I would not think, that in that situation, the use of a drone or lethal force would not be appropriate,” Holder replied.

“I have to tell you I find it remarkable that in that hypothetical, which is deliberately very simple, you are not able to give a simple, one-word answer: no,” Cruz added. He said he think that his scenario would constitute a “deprivation of life without due process.”

. . . When Cruz was about to abandon his line of questioning after a number of equivocations from Holder, the attorney general clarified that he was saying “no” such actions would not be constitutional.

Our Charlie Cooke: “I’m very disappointed. Rand Paul has been speaking about foundational American values for hours but he hasn’t yet mentioned contraception.”

Senator Marco Rubio’s press office is distributing this video of him discussing the bipartisan immigration-reform proposal on Sean Hannity’s program last night:

By Rubio’s description, it all sounds pretty appealing, and there’s no doubt he genuinely believes this would improve the situation. But there are a few hitches. For starters, Rubio describes the process:

When you’re undocumented, you have to come forward and you have to identify yourself. You’re going to be fingerprinted. You’re going to have a background check done. You’re going to have to pay taxes and fines. And what you get is a non-immigrant visa. That is not a green card. A non-immigrant visa means you have a work permit to stay in the country.

First, does the illegal immigrant pay taxes and fines before the non-immigrant visa is issued? How big are those taxes and fines? And how many illegal immigrants will be able to pay those taxes and fines? If they can’t, are they deported? Or do they have a portion of their future wages garnished?

Whatever system is implemented, how long will it be before that system of taxes and fines is declared a draconian and cruel hardship by the pro-rapid-legalization crowd, and there’s pressure to reduce it or waive it entirely? Remember, in the effort to pass immigration reform last time, a Bush White House spokesman said “Determining the past tax liability [for illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship] would have been very difficult and costly and extremely time consuming” . . . so the requirement was dropped during negotiations. As Mickey Kaus said, “Try that ‘difficult and time consuming’ excuse out on the IRS if you’re a U.S. citizen and see how far it gets you.”

How many illegal immigrants come to the U.S. looking for work but aren’t interested in U.S. citizenship? For those folks, would they even bother getting anything beyond the “non-immigrant visa”? Once they can work and send back money to their family, and not fear being arrested . . . isn’t that all that a certain portion of the 11 million want?

Because I thought a big reason people are wary of a “path to citizenship”/”path to legalization”/”path to green cards”/what have you is the fear of illegal immigrants as economic competitors for low-skilled work, driving down wages. Once you allow those currently in the country illegally to work legally . . . you’re expanding the labor pool, aren’t you? There are currently 22 million Americans who are unemployed or under-employed (working part-time, can’t find full-time work). Is putting 11 million people on the path to becoming legal going to help those folks, or hurt them by creating more competition for available jobs?

If Marco Rubio were in charge of implementing and enforcing this whole system, it would be easier to believe that the enforcement parts of this legislation would live up to their billing, and that those who weren’t willing to “play by the rules” would be deported. But he isn’t, so there’s a lot of wariness out there that this legislation will have to overcome.

Transcript below the fold . . .

#more#

Senator Marco Rubio: “First of all, thanks for having me on to talk about this important topic. I think it is a good moment to remind people and the country that the vast majority of conservatives favor legal immigration, and we don’t have a legal immigration system that works right now. And our problem with illegal immigration is that it undermines legal immigration.

“So, we have 11 million people that are undocumented. We understand that we have to deal with this issue because we have 11 million people that, by all accounts, are going to be here the rest of their lives with or without documents. Our objection has been in the past that we can’t do anything to deal with 11 million people that number one, is unfair to the people who have done it the right way. Or number two, that would encourage illegal immigration in the future. And that’s why your point is so important.

“One of the things that I’ve made a key part of my own personal principles, and am glad they found their way into these principles, and must be a part of any final bill, and that is this: that before we can move toward a path for green cards — because citizenship comes after that — before we move to a path toward green cards, there have to be enforcement mechanisms that are verified and in place. And it’s not just the border, Sean. It’s workplace enforcement because that’s the magnet for illegal immigration. And it’s tracking the entry and exit visas. Forty percent of our illegal immigration, of our undocumented people in this country, entered legally and they overstayed their visas. We don’t track when people leave, so we don’t even know who they are or where they are.

“All of these things must happen before there is a path to a green card. I think that is a critical part of any component that we do here.”

FOX News’ Sean Hannity: “I read the framework that was put out today. Senator, it said simultaneously, so I wondered if people were playing games. Already playing politics?”

Rubio: “No, let me explain that. Here’s what happens. When you’re undocumented, you have to come forward and you have to identify yourself. You’re going to be fingerprinted. You’re going to have a background check done. You’re going to have to pay taxes and fines. And what you get is a non-immigrant visa. That is not a green card. A non-immigrant visa means you have a work permit to stay in the country. You don’t qualify for any federal benefits under that. You don’t get federal benefits. During the same time — and they’re going to have to stay in this process for a significant period of time — and while they’re in that process, is when all of this security stuff needs to happen.

“And after a number of years have gone by and the security enforcement stuff is in place, then the second phase begins, which is that we give people the opportunity to apply for a green card, the same way everybody else does. Not a special way. The same way. Which means that you have to stand in line. You have to wait your turn behind everyone who applied before you legally. And when your turn comes up, you have to qualify for the visa that you’re applying for.

“In essence, we are giving people the opportunity to earn the chance to do this the way they should have done it to begin with. That’s why it said simultaneous, because while you’re in that probationary period, that’s when the enforcement stuff is happening.”

Hannity: “So how long will this process ultimately take? For example, you said no federal benefits, you have to prove that you have a job, you have to go through a background check. I mean, is it really going to be that stringent for people?”

Rubio: “That’s why the details are so important of how you write it. You’re absolutely right. This is a town where they write things that are called something, but that’s not what it is. So it has to be important. Look, you said something in your outline that is very important. I don’t want to ever have to do this again. But that’s what is going to happen if all we do is the legalization part and we don’t do the enforcement part. And the only way that I know to incentivize the enforcement part is to say that the green-card stuff doesn’t even begin to happen until the enforcement happens first. That trigger is critically important, otherwise it will never happen. That’s why we are where we are today. Because when they did this in 1986, they did not do the enforcement, and that led to 11 million people. We will be right back here again in ten years or less if we don’t do the enforcement.”

Hannity: “Can I characterize that, if you don’t get enforcement first, or securing the borders first, is that a deal killer for you?”

Rubio: “Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Because we will be right back here again. I want to deal with this permanently. And by the way, I think the vast majority of people in both parties would agree with me on that point. No one ever wants to have to do this again. I mean, no one is happy about the fact that we have 11 million people here who are undocumented. This is something that should never ever happen again. But the decisions that were made that led to this happened when I was in ninth grade. That was a long time ago. And now we have to deal with it so that it never happens again.”

Hannity: “How do you respond to those people? I read the framework and when you first explained it to me last week, and I spoke to you, I said that this was the most interesting proposal that I had ever heard. Because it seemed like you were really sincere in putting this to bed once and for all. And also it seemed like a very, very difficult process with a lot of penalties involved for people who did not respect out laws and sovereignty. What do you say to people who say, ‘Well, ultimately in the end if people can get a green card, they can stay. That it’s a back door form of amnesty.’ What’s your response to that?”

Rubio: “Well, first of all, the bottom line is that it would have been cheaper and easier for them to have done it the legal way than the way they are going to get it now. In essence, we are not creating an incentive and we are not rewarding it. Because, quite frankly, for many of these people, they would have been better off doing it the right way. This is going to cost them penalties. This is going to cost them taxes. This is going to cost them a significant wait. And then, after they do all of that, the only thing they are going to have access to is the opportunity to apply for a green card. You still have to qualify for the visa you are applying for. So, they would have been better off doing it the right way from the beginning.

“Amnesty. [It's] different from the proposal in 2007 that created a brand new thing called a Z visa, which basically was a blanket and you had to do very little to qualify for it. So, we are not trying to punish anybody here. This is not that we are angry at immigrants. This is about the fact that we don’t want this to ever happen again. And we don’t want to be unfair to the people that have done it the right way. Sean, I have hundreds of people a month come to our offices to talk about the fact that they have family members that are waiting in line to come here the right way. Our message to them cannot be, ‘Come illegally because it’s cheaper and quicker.’

“On the other hand, this is the reality. We have 11 million human beings in this country that are going to be here for the rest of their lives. We have to solve that problem in a way that takes care of it forever.”

Hannity: “And they go to the back of the line, that will be part of the legislation. Correct?”

Rubio: “Yes. And not only do they go to the back of the line and wait behind everybody who applied before them, the right way. But when their turn comes up, they have to qualify for the visa they are applying for. Not a special pathway.”

Hannity: “And there is going to be a lot of penalties and security checks and a lot of other. I will say this, Senator.”

Rubio: “At the front end. Yeah.”

Hannity: “It’s the most thoughtful proposal that I have heard and you’ve explained it better than anybody. But the devil will be in the details.”

Rubio: “Always is.”

Hannity: “And to me I agree with you that, if they don’t secure the border first, there is no point because we are going to be back to debating it in five years.”

Rubio: “That’s right. That’s correct.”

Hannity: “All right, Senator, thanks so much for clarification. I appreciate it. I wish you best of luck on this process as you move forward.”

Rubio: “Thank you, Sean.”

From the Tuesday edition of the Morning Jolt:

Righty Bloggers Wish to Deport Latest Bipartisan Immigration Reform Proposal

So, what are the early reviews for that immigration-reform package introduced by eight senators?

Mark Krikorian:

I can at least respect the Democrat members of this cabal — Schumer, Durbin, Menendez, and Bennet — because the Left has never hidden its disdain for America’s sovereignty. But the Republicans — McCain, Graham, Flake, and Rubio — want to achieve the Left’s objectives while appearing tough.

His debating partner from the weekend, Hugh Hewitt, wants to see details:

Unfortunately the “framework” isn’t legislative language and it was the language about “Z Visas” that sank the last attempt to deal with the issue. At first glance is there up-to-date-information about the border fence or its proposed extensions, no specifics on how many years — 10, 15, 20? — a regularized resident would have to wait until becoming eligible for benefits and voting and whether that regularized resident would have to return home to wait for citizenship in line with other would-be immigrants as opposed to staying here as a permanent resident but without voting rights, and no details on how the broken visa system or the not-yet-mandatory E-Verify programs would work.

It is a speech outline, and a not very good one at that. What is needed is a bill. An actual honest-to-goodness bill that free people can read and debate. Will the sharpies inside the Beltway ever figure out that those of us who can read don’t have the highest opinions of their drafting ability or a great deal of trust that that which they say they will do they will do.

Thoroughly opposed, Michelle Malkin:

Hey, did someone set the clock back six years in Washington? Because today looks a hell of a lot like the dawn of the Bush-Kennedy-McCain 2007 illegal alien amnesty. Deja vu all over again.

Starring in the role of John McCain this time around? Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio . . .

Don’t believe the hype from Rubio supporters that this warmed-over shamnesty proposal — another recipe for more illegal immigration, a bigger welfare state, and undermined sovereignty — is somehow new, improved and more enlightened.

Neo-Neocon expresses what will be the core of the opposition to the path to citizenship:

There’s a principle here, among other things, which is that coming here illegally should not be further rewarded. I write “further” because it already is rewarded.

Rick Moran also wonders how much of what’s written in the law would ultimately get enforced:

It also remains to be seen what kind of enhanced border security measures would be passed. We have seen immigration bureaucrats undermine or even ignore measures that have passed Congress (like the virtual fence).

It remains to be seen whether any immigration reform proposal can get through the GOP House. It might come down to how many Republican House members tie immigration reform to the improvement in relations with Hispanics.

For the pro-open borders perspective, there’s Nick Gillespie over at Reason:

The government doesn’t want to admit it, but except in totalitarian countries, they don’t run the border. People come and go based on large-scale dynamics that simply overwhelm most nations’ ability to control in-flows and out-flows of people. E-verify systems are a nightmare filled either with error rates that will harass thousands of innocent people and businesses or else be so porous all they will do is add a drag on hiring legally. If the senators start really working the Sunday shows and their constituents about how immigration benefits our economy and is the right thing to do from a historical and moral perspective, that will be the sign that they’re meaning to take this across the finish line.

The thing is, I don’t think a bunch of senators going on Sunday shows talking about the joys of immigration will actually change people’s minds about this issue.

The discussion about illegal immigrants is allegedly talking about the same 11 million people, but the two sides describe them in diametrically opposite terms. On one side, we have a bunch of lawbreakers, who have come here and taken our jobs, driven down our wages, and worsened the crime problem, sucking away at our public benefits, being treated in our emergency rooms, driving recklessly and traveling ten to a van and facilitating the creation of a permanent underclass and black-market economy; gangs and the drug trade have flourished in their impoverished, lawless shadow communities. The other side says we’re dealing with aspiring Americans just like the ancestors of most of us, hardworking dreamers who are valedictorians and volunteers and folks who would come to epitomize the greatness of America, just like the Ellis Island-era immigrants, if we would just give them the chance; they point out that they’re around us without us noticing, as we enjoy the services of the busboys, waiters, cooks, construction workers and nannies around us.

In our guts, most of us know that some of the 11 million are as bad as the critics say, and some are as good as their defenders say . . . and that our government has proven an absolute failure at sorting out the good ones from the bad ones.

By the way, what does it say about Obama’s well-proven ability to louse up bipartisan negotiations that this occurs?

Some senior Democratic members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus used a private White House meeting Friday to urge President Obama not to unveil his own immigration legislation, for fear of blowing up delicate bipartisan talks, Democratic sources tell CNN…

Sources familiar with the bipartisan Senate framework announced Monday tell CNN one of the main reasons they chose to unveil their framework one day before the president’s planned Tuesday speech on the subject, was to start the national dialogue on their bipartisan terrain. Politically, CNN is told the senators felt it was crucial for it to be known that there has been a real bipartisan process ongoing that is independent from the president.

“It would be a sabotage of the process,” said one immigration reform advocate familiar with internal discussions but not able to speak freely on the record.

“Everybody is fine with him announcing principles, using bully pulpit, etc. But what nobody who actually wants to see this passed wants, is an ‘Obama White House’ branded bill getting introduced,” said the source.

Well, there’s the secret words there — “nobody who actually wants to see this passed” wants to see Obama grabbing the glory and having his staff determine the details of the legislation . . . but it’s not so clear that the president actually wants to see this passed, when he thinks he could get another bite at the apple after the 2014 midterms. Demagoguing the Republicans as racist, xenophobic and viscerally anti-immigrant has been a key part of their messaging . . . why would they want a bipartisan immigration reform bill to louse up that convenient narrative?

Sen. Marco Rubio, a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Senate Foreign Relations Committee, just released the following statement in response to the State Department’s report on Benghazi:

“The independent report on the September 11 attacks on our mission facility and annex in Benghazi confirms what we have long known to be true: that Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans who lost their lives in the attacks could have been saved by better protection, a swifter military response and more attentive leadership from Washington. In the months leading up to the attacks, credible reports were brought to the attention of the State Department alleging insufficient security in the area. These reports also contained warnings of rapidly growing radical militias that threatened anti-American attacks. Despite all of the information available to them, the State Department failed to construct an adequate safety plan, declined to provide sufficient security personnel and failed to consider closing the mission given the growing threat.

“This is evidence of a flawed process to access and provide security for our diplomats. Such oversight failure and neglect is unacceptable. The report made strong recommendations regarding personnel who should be held accountable, and I am pleased that some individuals in positions of responsibility have resigned today. However, such resignations are a small step toward addressing this issue, which can only be fully resolved by an open and transparent internal review of the State Department’s relevant policies, operations and procedures. The men and women who represent our nation have the right to expect that our government is taking every possible measure to ensure their safety, and it is now clear that a leadership failure at the State Department led to grossly inadequate protection of our diplomats in Benghazi. I join my colleagues in wishing Secretary Clinton a speedy recovery. However, as she is ultimately responsible for the department and U.S. posts around the world, her testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is indispensable to any effort to address this failure and put in place a process to ensure this never happens again.”

Note Sen. Marco Rubio’s pitch-perfect tone in this statement: he never suggests that Hillary Clinton’s sudden sickness/head injury are faked excuses to avoid testifying, but makes clear that she will need to answer questions under oath in the near future.

So, remember the final item in Friday’s Jolt, about an Obama campaign finance scandal about to break? Over the weekend I received the gist, but was told to hold it until 9 a.m. Eastern Monday. Bits and pieces are now cropping up on conservative web sites, so here’s the gist: President Obama’s campaign web site does not meet the industry standard for secure use of credit cards — nor do about 47 percent of campaign web sites, including the 2010 campaign web site of Sen. Marco Rubio.

Anyone who’s ever bought anything on the Internet knows that you’re usually asked for the security code on the back of your credit card; this prevents someone who knows your name and credit card number but who hasn’t stolen the card from fraudulently using it. You even need the security code to purchase Obama paraphernalia from his campaign web site – but not to make a donation!

The portions of the report, from the Government Accountability Institute:

“There has been a lot of discussion of the role that money plays in our elections but little or no focus on the vulnerabilities of our election system to be influenced and or possibly manipulated by foreign and fraudulent campaign donations. That is precisely what this report is about, and it’s very troubling,” said Peter Schweizer, President and Co-Founder of the Government Accountability Institute.  “The findings in this report reveal that foreign agents of influence can easily be contributing untold amounts of illegal money into presidential and congressional campaigns.  Here’s the good news for most of those who are vulnerable: it’s a three-minute, couple-of-clicks solution,” said Schweizer. “We are urging all congressional offices and President Obama to turn on anti-fraud credit card protections immediately.”

The report found almost half (47.3%) of congressional campaign donation websites lack anti-fraud credit card security systems common on most e-commerce websites.  As for Gov. Mitt Romney’s campaign, the research found his website does maintain the proper security measures.

Nearly Half of Congress Vulnerable to Fraudulent and Foreign Donations: Of the 446 House and Senate members who have an online donation page, 47.3% do not require the three or four digit credit card security number (officially called the Card Verification Value, or the CVV) for Internet contributions. The CVV is an industry-standard anti-fraud credit card security feature used by over 90% of all e-commerce operations and nineteen of the twenty largest charities in the United States. By not protecting themselves with industry-standard security, larger campaigns pay millions of dollars in extra card processing fees that could otherwise be avoided with the use of the CVV.

Given the scope of the problem within Congress, the Institute created an interactive 50-state map to allow citizens and journalists to identify which members of Congress lack industry-standard anti-fraud credit card protection on their campaign donation websites. Go to: www.CampaignFundingRisks.com

· Donation Solicitations On Foreign Websites To Then-Candidate Marco Rubio’s 2010 Donation Page: The Institute discovered multiple Spanish language, foreign websites featuring video links that included embedded advertising directing individuals to the donation solicitation page of then-U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio. In addition, Rubio lacked CVV protection, which was corrected in May of 2012. As of this report’s publication date, many of these links are still up and active. This is a potential violation of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) solicitation laws.

Ø  Obama Campaign Lacks the Industry-Standard Level Of Credit Card Security For Donations, But Uses It For Merchandise Purchases: To purchase Obama campaign merchandise, the campaign requires buyers to enter their credit card CVV security code, but does not require the credit card security code to be entered when making an online campaign donation. By GAI’s estimates, the Obama campaign’s failure to utilize industry-standard protections potentially costs the campaign millions in extra processing fees.

Ø  Obama.com Purchased By An Obama Bundler In Shanghai, China With Questionable Business Ties to State-Run Chinese Enterprises: In 2008, Obama.com was purchased by an Obama fundraiser living in Shanghai, China, whose business is heavily dependent on relationships with Chinese state-run television and other state-owned entities.

Ø  68% Of Traffic To Anonymously Registered Obama.comIs Foreign: According to industry leading web analytics site Markosweb, an anonymously registered redirect site (Obama.com) features 68 % foreign traffic. Starting in December 2011, the site was linked to a specific donation page on the official www.BarackObama.com campaign website for ten months. The page loaded a tracking number, 634930, into a space on the website labeled “who encouraged you to make this donation.” That tracking number is embedded in the source code for Obama.com and is associated with the Obama Victory Fund. In early September 2012, the page began redirecting to the standard Obama Victory Fund donation page.   Search engine optimization (SEO) efforts, using common spamming techniques, may have also been undertaken by unknown third-parties, generating foreign traffic to Obama.com.

In Missouri, controversial GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin is now using the e-mail list from Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign — this is pretty standard practice for presidential campaigns, by the way — to argue that he’s the Marco Rubio of this cycle:

Friend,

A few years ago, Party Bosses wanted Marco Rubio gone so that Charlie Crist could sail to the Republican Senate nomination in Florida.

A few days ago, Crist spoke at the Democratic National Convention — where attendees had just adopted a platform supporting taxpayer-funded abortion on demand into the third trimester of pregnancy.

If you missed Newt last week on Meet the Press addressing this point, it’s worth a minute of your time to watch:

Now, those very same party bosses that pushed political opportunist Charlie Crist want Todd Akin gone from the Missouri Senate race. The Party Bosses have turned their backs on Todd Akin, and are content to let liberal, pro-abortion Claire McCaskill win another term.

Actually, party bosses don’t want McCaskill to win; they want a Republican who is not a giant liability to be the party’s Senate candidate in that key state. Todd Akin refused to allow that to happen, so now he’s asking for $5 donations, hoping to raise $5,000.

As of July 18, McCaskill had $3.5 million cash on hand.

Congressman Akin, we know Marco Rubio. Marco Rubio’s a friend of ours. And you’re no Marco Rubio.

The final Morning Jolt of an exhausting convention week in its entirety — now subscribe if you haven’t, so the Powers That Be don’t nudge me to leave something for subscribers in future editions:

Who Are You, and What Did You Do With the Old Mitt?

At times, he was scary good.

No, really, where has that Mitt Romney been all year? All campaign? Since 2007?

Every time he’s given a nice speech after a primary victory, I would usually joke on Twitter, “ah, looks like those new personality software upgrades are working out, he sounds much more natural now,” or something like that. (It’s a perennial; as Erick Erickson said last night, “Romney v.6.5 is pretty awesome.”)

But the Mitt Romney we saw tonight . . . it’s as if he had been saving up every bit of his inner emotional life, his soft, sentimental side, and let it all out. This was a speech that requires us to reexamine what we think we know about Romney. He might be a guy who is just spectacularly focused, and remarkably capable and adaptable. And in each objective in Romney’s life — at Bain, in Massachusetts, in his past campaigns — he has done, and adapted, to whatever the situation requires. And so when people say he’s stiff, or boring . . . remember that he’s never really needed to be “humanized” before now. Or people like you and I have urged him to do it, but he hasn’t really needed to do it . . . until this moment. Right around now, the casual voters start paying attention.

And then he told the story of his father leaving a rose for his mother on her bedside table every day until he died.

And then he mentioned about how he and Ann wish they could have one more day of their sons being young, and rambunctious, and all wrestling with each other. (I wonder if he was aiming for the been-away-for-his-sons-for-nearly-a-week-convention-correspondent demographic.)

And then he gently ribbed his rival by contrasting Obama’s grandiose pledge to lower the oceans and heal the earth . . . against a simple promise to help you and your families.

Ross Douthat: “It was a highly effective reintroduction to Romney the man, w/absolutely nothing in it to make Americans nervous about voting for him.”

Tabitha Hale: “Suddenly this doesn’t feel like 2008 anymore.”

2. The Rest of the Thursday Speakers

We’ve heard quite a bit about the need to “humanize” Romney. I suppose this comes from the sense of not knowing what a politician is like when they’re not on camera, when they’re not on stage, when the applauding crowds have all gone home, and when it’s just him and those who have known him since before he was famous.

Every once in a while, you hear stories of Mitt Romney that suggest he’s just the nicest, kindest, most warm-hearted guy in the world — almost too good to be true. And yet, on the campaign trail, that comes through all so rarely. I’ve speculated that young Mitt saw his father’s political career get immolated by one stray comment and the ruthless knives of the Nixon operation, and came away with a desire to never show too much to the eyes of the public. Even when he’s speaking off the cuff he seems scripted.

America, meet Ted and Pat Oparowski:

In 1979, tragedy struck our family when our youngest son, David, age 14, was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

Over a period of seven months, he was in and out of Children’s Hospital in Boston for treatment. Throughout that agonizing period, Mitt took time from his busy schedule to visit David. They developed a loving friendship.

On one of his visits, Mitt discovered that David was very fond of fireworks. He went out and bought a box full of “BIG TIME” fireworks that had to sit on the closet shelf because they couldn’t be set off in the city. We waited until we were able to go to Ogunquit, Maine, where we set them off on the sand dunes — with permission from the fire and police departments.

Through that simple but thoughtful gift, Mitt brought joy to a young boy who hadn’t experienced any for too long. He also gave the rest of us a welcome release.

On another visit, David, knowing Mitt had gone to law school at Harvard, asked Mitt if he would help him write a will. He had some prized possessions he wanted to make sure were given to his closest friends and family.

The next time Mitt went to the hospital, he was equipped with his yellow legal pad and pen. Together, they made David’s will. That is a task that no child should ever have to do. But it gave David peace of mind.

So, after David’s death, we were able to give his skate board, his model rockets, and his fishing gear to his best friends. He also made it clear that his brother, Peter, should get his Ruger .22 rifle.

How many men do you know would take the time out of their busy lives to visit a terminally ill 14 year old and help him settle his affairs?

David also helped us plan his funeral. He wanted to be buried in his Boy Scout uniform. He wanted Mitt to pronounce his eulogy. Mitt was there to honor that request. We will be ever grateful to Mitt for his love and concern.

Jeff Greenfield: “Is there any doubt those affecting, moving stories of Romney’s kindnesses will be seen via TV ads? (Remember ‘Ashley’s Story’ from 2004?)”

Then we got our mystery guest . . . Clint Eastwood.

It . . . was odd. Not consistently terrible as some argued. I have no doubt some folks loved it. It may very well have actually moved some votes. But boy, did it get weird at times.

First, Eastwood looks old. But even more than that, he used no notes or script, and his remarks appeared to be stream of consciousness. Dirty Harry’s first two shots were through each of the teleprompters. He pretended to be having a conversation with Obama, except I don’t know if he ever clearly set up the premise, so it seemed like he was hearing voices. But then every time he came up to the edge of the cliff, and you thought the segment would be an absolute train-wreck . . . he pulled back with some great line: “I thought maybe it was just because somebody had the stupid idea of trying terrorists in downtown New York City.” “Politicians are employees of ours.” “Of course we all know Biden is the intellect of the Democratic party.” And if the aim of this convention is to persuade Obama voters of 2008 that it’s okay to vote for Romney in 2012, then maybe nothing said last night will be more powerful than Eastwood’s gravelly, “When somebody does not do the job, you’ve got to let them go.”

As for Rubio . . .

A few folks had wondered about the conventional wisdom that Rubio was on the short list. The reasons against are clear: He’s young; he looks even younger; he’s been in the Senate less than two years and who knows if he would be ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency starting in January. But here’s why Rubio enjoyed future-presidential-candidate buzz from day one: He was one of the few 2010 candidates who ran on a national theme, why America is unique, why immigrants risk their lives to come here instead of the other way around, and why we endanger our future by adopting the policies of social-democrat, welfare-state governments in other countries instead of upgrading and updating the free-market approach that built so much prosperity for so many decades. He’s got the vision and he talks about big things, and it resonates with a lot of people both inside and outside the Republican party.

3. Life on the Convention Beat

If you’ve ever wondered what it was like to cover a national political convention . . .

After sending off the Jolt, the workday begins by driving into the city. For much of the week, Garmin has imagined an exit from an overpass that does not exist. I get around easier with the Garmin than without, but boy, does Garmin’s feminine voice like to squeeze every bit of disappointment and condescension into every declaration of “Recalculating . . . Take first right . . . [Sigh] . . . Recalculating . . .” Once you’re downtown, it’s time to run the security gauntlet. Don’t get me wrong; every cop, Secret Service agent, National Guardsman, and every other person involved with security I’ve encountered so far has been a complete professional. But it is a bit dispiriting to have the bag searched, laptop removed, empty the pockets, walk through the magnetometer, get hand-wanded and so on several times a day — usually separate personal searches to enter the media center and the Tampa Bay Times Forum, where the actual convention proceedings are being held. Mind you, this is within the security perimeter, where every vehicle has already been searched, every person has shown the appropriate lanyard pass several times, and so on. There’s often a drone of police helicopters, and if some of the Coast Guard helicopters come any lower, we’ll have haircuts. Kevin Williamson — the only NRnik who can alter his appearance to plausibly blend in with the Occupy Crowd; if NRHQ were a police precinct, most of us would look like lieutenants and detectives, while Kevin would be the undercover cop — had a thought on the security atmosphere:

[Convention organizers] have turned friendly little Tampa into something very unpleasantly resembling a prison camp, complete with rooftop patrols, combat gear, gunboats with weapons mounted on monopods, Green Zone-style barriers — the whole works. It is all very un-republican, though it has been conducted with a great deal more professionalism and courtesy than one experiences at the hands of the TSA. Still, it is kind of gross: Either this sort of thing is necessary or it is unnecessary, and neither possibility says anything good about the state of our republic.

In the media center, you run into just about everyone in the Washington journalism world — big names and small, former co-workers, former rivals on your beat, faces you recognize but can’t connect to a name. When going from Point A to Point B during convention time, you need to allocate time for the inevitable “Oh, hey, I haven’t seen you in forever!” chats. Sometimes I hear from readers their suspicions that Washington journalists are clubby and cliquish. Maybe some are, but I figure it’s a lot like any profession, and this is kind of like the annual trade show for any other business — you see the folks from past workplaces and campaigns that you really like and miss, the ones you don’t miss so much, the folks who always weird and now you wonder if they’ve gotten even weirder. (Journalism does not attract “normal” personalities. Some delightful personalities, some socially awkward and more comfortable with written words, and some genuinely unhinged personalities, but very few “normal” ones.) I’m reminded of Joan Cusack’s line about her high school reunion in Grosse Pointe Blank: “It was just as if everyone had swelled.” Then there are the politicians. I was stuck on a security line with Herman Cain. “Too bad you weren’t nominated, Mister Cain,” I said, meaning he wouldn’t be stuck in a security line. He gave me hearty back slap almost hard enough to dislodge a lung. “Thank you!” he said with a beaming smile. “Thankyouthankyouthankyou!” One of the highlights of Thursday for me was running into Woody Johnson of the New York Jets. If you’re a diehard supporter of both the GOP and Jets, you’re used to rooting for lost causes.

4. Addendum Nathan Wurtzel: “I’d say the convention did its job in terms of message. Now $500 million in paid ads will back it up.”

Veepstakes mania leads off the Tuesday Morning Jolt…

Will Romney Pick His Veep Now? … How About Now? … How About… Now?

With Romney back from his overseas trip, and the Olympics ending this weekend, the veepstakes talk is kicking into higher gear.

 I don’t know if Bill Kristol has any inside scoop… but he certainly has perfected the art of sounding like he does:

On Monday, Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol appeared on Fox News Channel where he discussed an editorial published over the weekend in which he recommends Mitt Romney “go for gold” and select either Rep.Paul Ryan (R-WI) or Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to be the vice presidential nominee. Kristol said that he expects the vice presidential pick to be announced on Thursday in preparation for a bus tour which will take the 2012 GOP ticket to a number of battleground states.

“If you look at Governor Romney’s schedule, he’s got events in Illinois Tuesday, Iowa Wednesday, a fundraising breakfast Thursday morning in New York – his calendar then is clear, so far as I can tell, Thursday afternoon and Friday,” said Kristol. “Then he begins a barnstorming tour Saturday in Virginia, North Carolina Sunday, Florida Monday, Ohio Tuesday.”

“It’d be pretty weird, I think, to do this four-day tour through four swing states – big bus tour, a lot of excitement – without having picked a V.P. and with that, sort of, hanging over him and dwarfing whatever message he wants to get out,” Kristol continued.

“I now believe the pick would be made Thursday afternoon or Friday,” said Kristol, saying that he believes Thursday is the more likely of the two days to reveal a running mate. “Let the guy go on the morning shows Friday morning. Dominate the news over the weekend – very exciting bus tour – with Romney accompanied by either Christie, Ryan or Rubio.”

Micah Sifry offers a leading indicator:

The Romney campaign wants you to download its mobile app to be among the first to find out who Mitt is going to pick as his running mate, but if past history is any guide, you might want to instead be looking at Wikipedia — and whether any of the leading contenders’ entries are being suddenly brushed up.

Sarah Palin’s Wikipedia page was updated at least 68 times the day before John McCain announced her selection, with another 54 changes made in the five previous days previous. Tim Pawlenty, another leading contender for McCain’s favor, had 54 edits on August 28th, with just 12 in the five previous days. By contrast, the other likely picks — Romney, Kay Bailey Hutchison — saw far fewer changes. The same burst of last-minute editing appeared on Joe Biden’s Wikipedia page, Terry Gudaitis of Cyveillance, told the Washington Post.

None of Wikipedia entries for the current candidates being bandied about by Romney-watchers — Rob Portman, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Kelly Ayotte or Pawlenty — are currently showing anything like the spike in edits that Cyveillance spotted on Palin and Biden’s pages back in 2008. But most of those came in the 24 hours prior to the official announcement. That said, if Wikipedia changes offer any hint of what’s coming, then today might be a good day to bet on Ryan.

My suggestion? Keep your eyes on Romney’s campaign plane at night.

Matt Drudge is a master of finding the intriguing comment buried in an article and . . . extrapolating big things.

The New York Times, in a profile of former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, wrote: “His fate is in the hands of Mr. Romney, a rival-turned-friend, who is on the cusp of announcing his vice-presidential selection. Mr. Romney has reached a decision, his friends believe, and he may disclose it as soon as this week.”

What makes these Romney friends believe he has made a decision? No word.

The Drudge headline: “HE’S MADE HIS DECISION!”

. . . Well, maybe. Or maybe the unidentified Romney friends are drawing the wrong conclusions from whatever they see/hear/sense in their friend.

It does seem plausible that Romney would be close to a decision.

RealClearPolitics concluded a few weeks ago that the officeholders getting the most work as campaign surrogates included Pawlenty, Ohio senator Rob Portman, Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan, and Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal. (In the weeks that followed, New Hampshire’s Sen. Kelly Ayotte seems to be getting more work as a Romney surrogate.) There were reports that Florida senator Marco Rubio was not being vetted, and then Romney said in an interview that he was indeed being vetted. The big news this morning is that South Dakota senator John Thune said he has “been to Boston to meet Romney’s senior advisers and has met Beth Myers, who is leading the search for the vice presidential nominee.”

So, barring some surprise, completely under-the-radar choice, the list is (in alphabetical order) Ayotte, Jindal, Pawlenty, Portman, Ryan, Rubio and Thune. (A top Romney source already told Bob Costa it’s “not Condi” Rice.)

The Olympics’ opening ceremony is July 27, and London-related headlines are likely to dominate the following weeks. Mid-August is traditionally America’s vacation time. And then there’s the August 27 deadline. So there’s a short window to announce in the coming two weeks, or sometime after the Olympics end August 12.

My suggestion? Keep your eyes on Romney’s campaign plane at night.

In the Thursday edition of the Morning Jolt, a look at a surprising rebuke to President Obama from a news anchor, a poll of the most memorable moments in television history, and then this bit of political buzz . . .

And the Next Vice President of the United States Will Be . . .

The long-awaited name of the running mate leaked yesterday: Cheri Honkala.

Wait, that’s the running mate for Green Party nominee Jill Stein. What party did you think I was talking about?

Reuters generated quite a bit of buzz with this little nugget:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney acknowledged on Tuesday he is considering naming his choice to serve as vice presidential running mate earlier than usual to better compete with President Barack Obama.

As they work from a short list of leading Republicans, Romney and his advisers say they are weighing whether he should announce his choice some weeks earlier than the traditional time of around the Republican National Convention, which is to be held in Tampa in late August.

The reasoning, advisers say, is that two candidates would be able to raise more money and engage Obama and Vice President Joe Biden in battle with polls showing Americans closely divided on whether to pick the Republican challenger or Democratic incumbent in the November 6 election.

Jonathan Tobin urges us to not jump to that conclusion: “Those who believe Romney is going to make a decision based on the ephemeral political advantages to be gained are forgetting that the Republican is the ultimate numbers-cruncher and specialized in mining the data exhaustively to make the right choice in business. He is probably conducting the veep search in the same manner he has made every other important business and political decision in his life, which makes the notion of moving up the pick merely in order to give him a couple of positive news cycles laughable. This is a man who is obsessed with long rather than short-term gains. That is why it is likely that whoever he chooses will be someone he thinks can help him govern rather than someone who is, no matter how impressive, unlikely to be the difference in the fall election.”

And during our discussion on MSNBC — yes, I shared a set with Obama’s former deputy press secretary Bill Burton! — Chuck Todd pointed out that right now, guys like Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, and Ohio Sen. Rob Portman are already all out there, being effective surrogates and fundraisers for the Romney campaign. Each one of those guys gets an extra bit of attention and buzz because they’re possible running mates. What’s the rush to move from five high-attention, loud-buzz surrogates to one big one and four lesser ones?

Sen. Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, often-mentioned Romney running-mate possibility, and sponsor of immigration legislation. just issued this statement regarding today’s announcement by the Department of Homeland Security regarding its immigration enforcement policies:

There is broad support for the idea that we should figure out a way to help kids who are undocumented through no fault of their own, but there is also broad consensus that it should be done in a way that does not encourage illegal immigration in the future. This is a difficult balance to strike, one that this new policy, imposed by executive order, will make harder to achieve in the long run.

Today’s announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short term answer to a long term problem. And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one.

Among all the swing states, Florida is increasingly looking like the one where Romney will breathe easiest:

Gov. Mitt Romney holds a 47 – 41 percent lead over President Barack Obama in Florida, where 63 percent of voters say the president’s support of same-sex marriage will not affect their vote, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Another 25 – 11 percent of voters, including 23 – 9 percent among independent voters, say Obama’s support of gay marriage makes them less likely to support his candidacy. Adding Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio to the GOP ticket would give the Republican Romney/Rubio team a 49 – 41 percent lead over President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. Romney’s lead in the horse race compares to a 44 – 43 percent tie in a May 3 survey by the independent Quinnipiac University and a 49 – 42 percent Obama lead March 28.

Romney has led, often narrowly, four of the last polls in the Sunshine State.

UPDATE: The headline for this post originally said that Romney was “surgining” in Florida. This is a little-known term that means to surge with surgical precision*.

* The term is little-known because I just made it up.

From the Tuesday edition of the Morning Jolt:

At This Point, Romney’s Short List . . . Is the Long List

It’s a little amusing to watch Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio feign a bit of incredulity about running-mate selection at a time like this, because when you bring the guy whom lots of conservatives adore from a key demographic and a swing state, to campaign in another swing state . . . well, as they say on ESPN, come on, man.

The Hill:

Mitt Romney told reporters Monday that “the process for selecting a vice presidential running mate is just beginning” and there was no short list of candidates.

He made the remarks while standing alongside Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who’s considered to be a favorite to be added to the Republican ticket.

“We really haven’t had a discussion yet of putting together a list or evaluating various candidates,” Romney said.

He made the remarks in his first press availability since he became the presumptive GOP nominee.

The former Massachusetts governor said that his campaign team along with adviser Beth Meyers — who last week was put in charge of the search — were spending time hiring law and financial firms to do a through vetting of the potential candidates. And while Romney’s appearance with Rubio in Philadelphia on Monday was widely thought to be a vice presidential audition, neither man was willing to openly acknowledge that prospect. “I’m not talking about that process anymore,” Rubio told reporters. The Florida senator has previously denied interest in the position.

For what it’s worth, I thought Rubio’s answer in interviews like this one seemed pretty definitive:

NRO: So . . . you’re probably sick of being asked questions about being someone’s running mate.

RUBIO: I guess I’m flattered that people ask about it — people don’t usually ask that about someone who they don’t think is credible. But it’s not going to happen. My answer on that issue hasn’t changed.

NRO: When you say it’s not going to happen, do you mean you don’t expect to be asked, or that if offered, you would turn it down?

RUBIO: When you say it’s not going to happen and you’re not interested, they’re not going to ask. You don’t ask somebody to be your vice president who has already said they’re not interested. It doesn’t work that way, as you well know. There’s a process to selecting a vice president. It’s not like asking someone to go to the prom. This is a very significant decision that involves a lengthy process. If you’re not involved in that process because you’ve made it clear you’re not interested, you’re not going to be asked.

NRO: So this is you sending a signal, “don’t ask.”

RUBIO: I’m focused on some other things going on right now. Particularly some issues that I look forward to being involved with in a majority in the Senate, if, God willing, we’re able to win in November.

At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey chuckles at how every bit of denial from Rubio seems to set off another, more intense round of speculation.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if a Republican politician called for everyone to chill out for a while and let Mitt Romney engage in his process for picking a running mate — and used it as a springboard for even more speculation? Oh, wait — that’s not irony, it’s punditry. Either way or both at the same time, I doubt that anyone will take Marco Rubio’s advice and find something else to discuss for the next three or four months . . . like, say, dog handling or cookie analysis:

Rubio says, ““The last thing he needs are those of us in the peanut gallery to be saying what we would or would not do,” so of course that’s the first thing the rest of us will do.

Look, people. Marco Rubio is doing everything possible to let you know that he’s not interested in being part of a Republican presidential ticket! In fact, let’s look at his schedule…

On Wednesday, April 25, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) will deliver a major speech on the future of U.S. foreign policy at an event hosted by The Brookings Institution. Rubio’s remarks will focus on whether U.S. global leadership is sustainable and even necessary in the 21st century.

Ah.

Yeah, that’ll tamp down the speculation.

Over on the home page, I have an interview with Florida senator Marco Rubio about his endorsement of Mitt Romney, the signal he’s sending on the oral arguments at the Supreme Court about Obamacare, and his idea for a revised version of the DREAM Act.

Most notably, Rubio indicates that his denial of interest in the vice-presidency is so thorough and irreversible for this cycle that he would not participate in the usual vetting process.

NRO: So . . . you’re probably sick of being asked questions about being someone’s running mate.

RUBIO: I guess I’m flattered that people ask about it — people don’t usually ask that about someone who they don’t think is credible.

But it’s not going to happen. My answer on that issue hasn’t changed.

NRO: When you say it’s not going to happen, do you mean you don’t expect to be asked, or that if offered, you would turn it down?

RUBIO: When you say it’s not going to happen and you’re not interested, they’re not going to ask. You don’t ask somebody to be your vice president who has already said they’re not interested. It doesn’t work that way, as you well know. There’s a process to selecting a vice president. It’s not like asking someone to go to the prom. This is a very significant decision that involves a lengthy process. If you’re not involved in that process because you’ve made it clear you’re not interested, you’re not going to be asked.

NRO: So this is you sending a signal, “don’t ask.”

RUBIO: I’m focused on some other things going on right now. Particularly some issues that I look forward to being involved with in a majority in the Senate, if, God willing, we’re able to win in November.

Oh, please:

Rubio was baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with his family at around the age of eight, and remained active in the faith for a number of years during his early youth, family members told BuzzFeed.

Rubio spokesman Alex Conant confirmed the story to BuzzFeed, and said Rubio returned to the Catholic church a few years later with his family, receiving his first communion on Christmas day in 1984 at the age of 13.

The revelation adds a new dimension to Rubio’s already-nuanced religious history—and could complicate his political future at a time when many Republicans see him as the odds-on favorite for the 2012 vice presidential nod. Vice presidential candidates are traditionally chosen to provide ethnic and religious balance to a ticket. Mitt Romney’s Mormonism and Rubio’s Catholic faith would already mean the first two members of minority traditions on a Republican ticket in American history. Rubio’s Mormon roots could further complicate that calculation.

Readers of the Morning Jolt know I enjoy Ace at Ace of Spades a great deal, and so this is a temporary, good-natured disagreement, but I think he is spectacularly wrong about this:

Problematic for a Romney/Rubio ticket. Two Mormons on the ticket? That’s not exactly a “balanced” draw.

I don’t want to say it’s disqualifying (at least as far as Romney selecting him) but I have to think it’s actually disqualifying.

And I like Rubio. I’ve been saying for two years that we don’t know who the presidential candidate will be but we know exactly who the vice presidential candidate will be.

Alas.

Not that it’s a crime. Just that it precludes one particularly-strong ticket. Probably our strongest.

You could leave Marco Rubio off the GOP ticket for a lot of reasons. You might think he’s too young. You might think he hasn’t spent enough time in statewide office. You might think he’s not ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, or that he’s not a good fit with the supportive, behind-the-scenes role of the vice presidency.

But to leave him off the ticket because he was once a member of the Mormon church is insane, and to me, represents acquiescing to religious bigotry.

I want the best president, and the best candidate, available. I don’t care if that candidate is Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Jewish, Jehovah’s Witness, or Bajoran. I want the best ticket, and I don’t care if the pair are of the same religion. Sure, tickets are traditionally balanced in several ways, but to demand religious “balance” is to enact a de facto religious test for the Oval Office. And it seems pretty relevant to point out that even for those who would impose that illogical, unconstitutional requirement, there already is balance: Marco Rubio is Catholic. (UPDATE: “While Rubio continues to identify as a Conservative Roman Catholic, he frequently attends a non-denominational Baptist church with his family in Florida.”)

At some point, you pick your best ticket, put your best players on the field so to speak, and you take your chances. Yes, I know some voters are wary, or even hostile, about the Mormon faith. (Note that there is more hostility among self-identified Democrats than self-identified Protestants.) In the end, I don’t really care what these bigots think. Everyone whose religious faith does not include elements that other Americans find weird, please step forward.

We all pick our hill to die on, and I’m perfectly fine with mine being the fight against a religious test for office.

Do we fear that the Obama campaign might try to not-too-subtly fan the flames of public suspicion about the Mormon faith?

Let them try. Let’s let President Hope and Change run on persistent themes of Mormons’ unfitness for office. Let’s let them show the world precisely what kind of bigots and hypocrites they are. Let’s let Jeremiah Wright’s prize pupil, who defined his campaign in messianic tones, imply that the religious beliefs of a Mormon make him just too weird to be president.

“Don’t vote for Romney-Rubio! One’s Mormon, and the other used to be!” Folks, if that argument works to sway an election, we deserve to collapse.

I mean, if the Obama campaign wants to make the 2012 race about who experimented with what in their youth, we can go there.

Quick notes from a morning meeting with Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican.

What he expects from the general election: “You’re going to have an extremely negative [general election] campaign. Barack Obama in 2008 spent more money on negative attacks than anybody who had ever run for office in the United States. Period. And we can expect more of the same. Basically, an all-out assault on the character of whoever his opponent may be, because [Barack Obama] cannot win on his record, he cannot win on his ideas. So he’s going to have to win by eviscerating whoever his opponents are personally. And for all the talk of hope and change, his campaign in 2008 and I expect in 2012 will be nothing less than all-out than personal evisceration.”

On upcoming defense cuts: Rubio was at the recent NATO conference in Munich, and his sense on the impending defense cuts is that “there is no way to comply with the sequester, not without eviscerating the American defense system. It’s the reason why I voted against the whole debt-limit deal. It was poorly constructed. The number they came up with for the defense sequestration was put in there because they knew you couldn’t comply with it. They knew it would be so painful and so catastrophic that it would force the Congress to come up with a deal on the debt limit. It was never meant to be complied with. You just can’t do it.”

On the Senate failing to pass a budget for the past 1,000 days: “Even the most disorganized person I know has a budget. Every family, every business I know has a budget. Every entity I deal with has a budget. The idea that the most powerful government in the world . . . does not have a budget . . . I just think that’s weird. I really don’t understand the logic of it.”

On whether Republicans should risk a government shutdown in future budget fights: “No one here advocates a government shutdown, but we are headed towards the ultimate government shutdown, the mother of all government shutdowns, when we run out of money. That is where we are headed. The sovereign-debt crisis, when people stop buying your bonds and start demanding higher yields, meaning higher interest rates on the money they let you borrow, that stuff happens quickly. There’s no way to predict it, it just happens. Look no further than what the European Union is struggling with to see that’s where we’re headed. The mother of all government shutdowns occurs when we can’t borrow money anymore, or we have to borrow money just to pay the interest on the money we’re borrowing.”

What he thinks the Republican nominee’s message on Obamacare should be, in a nutshell: “One, it’s going to hurt the quality of health care in America; two, it’s going to take away the existing insurance that you’re happy with.”

His sense of the potential for conflict between Israel and Iran in the near future: “Time is ticking, and nothing is happening. I think everyone’s hoping sanctions will work. One of the hardest things for us to understand is that Iran is not run by rational players. It’s run by people who have a warped vision of their place in the world and there’s some instability in Iran between Ahmadinejad and some of the religious leaders in Iran. That friction plays into all of this.”

At this point, talk of a Somebody-Rubio ticket or an Obama-Clinton ticket is just idle speculation. For what it’s worth, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida insists he’s not interested in the vice-presidency, and President Obama insists that Vice President Biden is sticking around for the long haul.

But in Florida, they’re polling on this question nonetheless:

A new poll of registered voters in Florida shows if Sen. Marco Rubio is the VP candidate, the Republican ticket would get 46 percent of votes. With that scenario, President Barack Obama would receive 41 percent.

If President Obama were to drop current Vice President Joe Biden and add current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the ticket, 50 percent of voters would favor the them.

With both Rubio and Clinton on their respective party’s tickets, the race tightens — with 46 percent of vote going to the Democrats and 43 percent for the Republicans.

The poll by Suffolk also found Rubio has a 40 percent favorable, 31 percent unfavorable rating.

President Obama has a 45 percent favorable, 48 percent unfavorable rating. The poll is of registered voters, 41 percent Democrats, 36 percent Republicans, 23 percent no party/other.

On the heels of Univision doing immense investigative work on Rubio’s future brother-in-law being arrested in 1987, when the senator was all of 16 years old, the Washington Post’s Manuel Roig-Franzia has a story charging that Rubio has “embellished” the story of his family’s departure from Cuba upon the dawn of Castro’s regime. The Miami Herald’s Tallahassee bureau chief, Mark Caputo, notes that while the biography on Rubio’s web site gets the chronology wrong, the Post errs by defining “exiles” way too narrowly, and ignores that Rubio has given an accurate account of his family’s history in interviews many times:

Regardless of when his parents left Cuba, they were exiles because they stayed in the US, specifically Miami, in a community where they soon felt they couldn’t go back to their homeland. Though the story said his parents left for economic reasons, it’s silent about the fact that the dictator before Castro, Batista, was so brutal that it made Castro look like a good alternative at first. (Insert debate over the fairness of the post-Castro Cuban Adjustment Act here).

The Post also says “the supposed flight of Rubio’s parents has been at the core of the young senator’s political identity.” That’s a stretch. The actual story of the “flight” is far less emphasized than the fact that Rubio’s an Hispanic Republican, an immigrant and an exile.

So to suggest Rubio serially embellished the “dramatic” story of his parents fleeing Cuba could be a little too dramatic itself. And it might be an embellishment as well — absent more information clearly showing Rubio has repeatedly said his parents fled Castro’s Cuba.

Rubio’s office has told both the Washinton Post, the St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald that his parents came to the United States prior to Castro taking power. And he has said it more than once. In the article we wrote last month about his pending autobiography, Rubio clearly told us his parents came here before Castro took power. He struggled to recall the year (this isn’t in the story, it’s in my notes) and said it was in “57 or 58 or 59.”

When asked pointedly: Was it before the revolution? Rubio said it was before the revolution.

Kind of amazing that the newspaper that was so late to the Jeremiah Wright story that its own ombudsman reprimanded it suddenly is making such an all-out press on the junior senator from Florida. Why, it’s almost as if the institution had no interest in contradicting the narrative of Obama as post-partisan uniter in 2008, and now sees Rubio as someone who must be damaged and scuffed-up before he becomes a preeminent face in the Republican party. Between this story and the Univision one, it’s almost as if there’s a coordinated effort to deride and smear Rubio before he can become a national figure and perhaps sway the voting patterns of Latinos.

But I guess when Manuel Roig-Franzia wants to hit somebody, he hits somebody.

This morning, Quinnipiac finds slightly brighter — or perhaps less dark — news for Florida governor Rick Scott, while Sen. Marco Rubio continues to enjoy positive approval ratings:

Florida voters, especially women, like Gov. Rick Scott more as a person, but all voters still disapprove 50 – 37 percent of the job he’s doing, in a Quinnipiac University poll released today, compared to a 52 – 35 percent disapproval August 5 and a 57 – 29 percent disapproval May 25. . . . U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio does better than Scott among Florida voters. He has a 49 – 31 percent approval rating, with positive scores of 81 – 10 percent among Republicans and 52 – 30 percent among independent voters. Democrats disapprove 52 – 19 percent.

Fascinating – not surprising, and perhaps a bit of off-the-cuff boilerplate praise for some rising stars in the GOP, but fascinating nonetheless, from the good folks at Bearing Drift:

Former Massachussets governor and presidential aspirant Mitt Romney was in Virginia Beach yesterday attending a fundraiser at the home of State Sen. Jeff McWaters.

The $1200 per plate event brought up some interesting data points regarding Governor Bob McDonnell.

Romney said that McDonnell has been an “incredible governor” and will be on “any candidate’s short-list” for Vice President. Now, considering that the candidate was in Virginia Beach – effectively McDonnell’s hometurf, that statement should be taken with a grain of sand. But he reiterated that the short list is “McDonnell, Governor Christie of New Jersey and Marco Rubio of Florida.”

Romney is not blind. He realizes that Virginia is an important state, witnessed only by the number of trips the president has made here in 2011. The commonwealth voted Democrat for president for the first time since 1964 in 2008, so Romney considers Virginia “key” in 2012.

J.R. Hoeft adds, “It is expected that Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling will reprise his roll as chief Romney supporter in Virginia again, as he did in 2008 in Romney’s first run for the nomination. This could point to McDonnell potentially leading in Romney’s Veep-stakes.”

McDonnell has indicated in past comments that he would consider an offer to be a candidate’s running mate, but has been quick to add he’s “not expecting a call.”

Keep in mind that if Texas Gov. Rick Perry departs his spot as head of the Republican Governors Association to run for president, McDonnell is slated to move into the top spot.