Here's an op-ed on CNN from a conservative Latino, asking Marco Rubio to do a Nixon-in-China and call out the Republican Party about immigration. For reasons known only to the author, he does so by quoting Spock, who apparently mentioned Nixon going to China in Star Trek VI. Does this make the argument more logical?
Anyway, he laments that Ileana Ros-Lehtinen can't join the ticket as VP, so the op-ed is essentially an exercise in damning with faint praise. Rubio is no Ros-Lehtinen, but at least he could do some good if he weren't so soft.
Rubio is referred to as the Michael Jordan of politics. But you don't score points sitting on the bench, basking in the approbation of the hard right, oblivious to the crowd of could-be supporters in the bleachers behind you, unable to muster, even, a faint cheer for your positions on what really matters to them.
You score points by leading. And that is where Rubio seems to fail -- so far. Rubio's "China" is immigration; by shirking this issue and standing fast to supporters who will brook no compromise, he demonstrates cowardice.
Marco Rubio has a tremendous chance to journey to "China" in the face of the volatile backlash that such a journey would provoke from the far right. He has the chance to delve into an issue with no easy answers -- with the smarts, mettle and energy that he surely possesses, the same way Ros-Lehtinen approaches her own public service.
It's not a particularly well-argued piece, but the main point is worth noting. Conservative Latinos are staying quiet. If Rubio were chosen for the ticket, would he say anything, especially given the positions of the eventual nominee?