Florida Senator Marco Rubio has positioned himself as an emerging GOP leader, largely by championing immigration reform as a way to improve his own (and his party’s) image with the electorate. He basically led the “Gang of Eight” in the Senate and has been the public champion of an immigration bill they composed and got out of the Senat Judiciary Committee last week. Which makes this interview today with Hugh Hewitt a little surprising:
Rubio played a major role in drafting the original legislation–the only changes made by the committee were to strengthen border security by applying it across the entire border rather than certain “high-risk” sections. Of course, the usualsuspects on the right have been criticizing his efforts for the past two months, but until now he seemed willing to defend the bill as-is.
The best you can say is he’s decided a bill that can’t pass the House as-is isn’t worth voting for, but this also seems pretty cowardly in the face of opposition. So it’s hard for me to read his reversal today as anything other than bowing to the usual Tea-Party intransigents–so much for his “reformer” act–and reveals him to be just another Republican who can’t/won’t negotiate on legislation in good faith.
But I’m admittedly biased, so I’ll throw it open to the group; what’s your take on Rubio’s flip-flop?
This reminds me of the time Mitch McConnell filibustered his own bill.
If I read that right and the end result was that the bill originally drafted by Rubio was strengthened with amendments, its completely cowardly and asinine for him to suddenly not support it. Is he in some kind of legislative percentage competition? Can’t be seen to support bills that don’t pass to mess up that 1.000 batting average or whatever?
Personally, it looks to me like he’s trying to have his cake and eat it too. He’ll forever be able to say he personally drafted legislation to help immigration reform, but if pressed, he can say he never voted for it. He’s trying to appeal to the hispanics and liberals on one hand while still staying “pure” in the eyes of the Tea Baggers. It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. Then again, I don’t think he’s getting near the 2016 nomination, there’s no way he’s crazy enough to get the crazy votes, and he’s not conservative enough or white enough to get the rest of the votes. He won’t make it through the primary
He wants the amendments, as the bill would be weak without them. It looks like the amendments (that he considers necessary) won’t get passed, so he is giving up on the bill.
That’s how I read it too Chronos. If he wanted them so badly, then write them in! The amendment process has been turned into a farce by Republicans, who offer purposeful poison pills they know would be damaging to Dems, or others designed simply to sink the bill. He wrote it! He should have gotten them in at the start! If he couldn’t, why is his name on the bill instead of requesting to remove it?*
Note: Though to be honest, I don’t know if the Senate rules allow that
Rubio’s purpose in the Gang of Eight is to build support among tea party members for the bill. He did not write it, he was part of a team that wrote it and given that he’s the most right-wing of the team, he probably didn’t get everything he wanted. But he made compromises, the bill is what it is, and now he’s trying to sell it, and he’s been really gung ho about it to the point where he’s actually hurting himself with his primary supporters.
But for those Tea Partiers who are willing to vote for the bill, they want tougher enforcement measures and a guarantee that the newly legalized immigrants won’t get benefits, thus blowing up the budget. Rubio has also been speaking on their behalf. And he’s right. The bill right now has hollow enforcement mechanisms. It will not pass the House and might not even pass the Senate without tougher enforcement to guarantee that we won’t do this a third time.
Wow. You really are just a “It’s okay as long as it’s a Republican doing it” guy, aren’t you? If a Democrat did this, you would be first in line to crucify him/her. Party over country.
I don’t think Rubio realized the significance of what giving so much discretion to the executive branch would do. They can pretty much waive the whole enforcement mechanism, let people in with criminal records, do pretty much anything they want. Rubio got played. He’s a young guy, he’ll live and learn.
Young for a politician and just begun playing with the big boys. He got played by Schumer, demonstrating that he’s not ready for prime time.
So now he’s in a position where he has to either back the bill anyway, walk away, or try to improve it. He’s chosen the last option, which shows that although he lacks experience, he is smart.
Senator John Cornyn’s amendment–which Rubio has apparently been negotiating “for weeks”–is summarized in this article:
The Houston Chronicle recently weighed in on just how ridiculous Cornyn’s amendment is:
Cornyn’s amendment is a poison pill, plain and simple. It is a ridiculous goal designed to be unattainable and untenable in this political climate. IMO it just more evidence that the Republicans–even the great Hispanic hope Marco Rubio–simply can’t negotiate in good faith on this issue for fear of alienating their racist base.
This is suicide for his presidential hopes, even more than pissing off his base would be. The only thing i can think off is that they think they can pass it without his vote and are trying to protect him.
Wow really? So now we’re just assuming Obama’s or any liberal in office is going to do that? Why the hell would you think any executive branch would let people in with criminal records without a good reason? What’s wrong with giving the president some discretion so that the local politics of your Minutemen racist club doesn’t affect national immigration statuses?
If you can’t tell, I favor a minimalist bill, with plenty of leeway for future presidents to tailor it to the specific needs of the country at that time. Allow a short pathway for citizenship, make token improvements in border security that is really impossible to fully secure, and get immigrants working here and paying taxes as soon as possible
Why shouldn’t we? After all, deportations are WAY down under Obama, so I see no reason why many of these are not criminals. They’re probably doing it on purpose to court the criminal elements, which played a critical role in the Democrat’s winning Florida in 2000.
But it’s mainly the deportations. If you can’t tell what the administration’s views are by how they act, how can you tell? You’d be left with just wild ass guessing about possible socialist or internationalist motives, and I’m sure no one would accuse Obama of having ulterior motives without the firm facts of his actual actions to back them up.
You’re wrong. After all, if you were right, then it would call my other assertion into question, namely that no political enemy of Obama’s would ever make claims about his motives that can easily be disproven by looking at his track record. And I’m pretty sure that no one has ever done that. Q.E.D. ETA: oh yeah and I forgot, I’m pretty sure I’m right about the Democrat win in Florida in 2000 as well. It has criminal written all over it.
Stating “you’re wrong” with no cite is not helpful. Simply back up your claim that deportations under the Obama administration have gone “way down”.
Here’s another cite:
According tofigures from Immigration and Customs Enforcement – the federal agency responsible for deportations – the Obama administration has deported more than any other President (by month and year). (pdf warning)
Are you kidding? This is the current GOP playbook, deny facts in the face of direct evidence.