Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Primary Lesson
National Review’s two cover stories on Rubio.
The two biggest losers of the 2016 cycle are Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. Bush came into the election with a reputation as a conservative reformer, a successful governor, and (by many accounts) the smarter, better of the sons of George H. W. Bush. That said, Jeb had a number of significant problems — the wrong last name, lack of charisma, support for Common Core, etc. — any one of which might have sank his candidacy, though it’s at least arguable that he was undone by his stance on immigration.
Rubio’s example, however, provides much greater clarity. To be sure, his boyish looks and lack of executive experience didn’t help, nor did the fact that he’s apparently never seen an overseas conflict that he didn’t think could be improved by the addition of American combat forces. But these shortcomings were hardly deal-breakers for most. Coupled with Rubio’s charm, eloquence, patriotism, policy cred, anti-abortion advocacy, personal story, and conservative record, the Republican Party and conservative movement would have found in him one of its best advocates in decades, had it not been for one thing: The Gang of Eight.
There is no good excuse for Rubio’s advocacy of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013. Not only was the bill a stinker, it was the sort of phonebook-sized, let’s-fix-everything folly that should be considered objectionable on its face. Moreover, Rubio had witnessed — as we all did — the debacle of the 2007 immigration bill, which proved that Republicans who could otherwise endure a great deal of legislative incompetence would go into open revolt against their party about this. As an intelligent man of 40-plus years who had spent more than a decade in state-level politics, Rubio should have known this and stayed as far away from the it as possible. Even his fans considered it a significant demerit, but — for many — it was the deal-breaker. Rubio might well have lost the nomination without this, but it’s hard to imagine his campaign crashing in such dramatic fashion.
If Rubio’s career is the sacrifice necessary to make the GOP to realize that Republican voters will punish even one of its brightest stars for endorsing amnesty or amnesty-lite immigration policies, the lesson will have been worth it. The price, however, will have been a high one.
Published in Immigration, Politics
I have a different nominee: Ricochet’s Own Rick Wilson
Good article Tom. As of this writing I have seen no evidence that anyone has learned that lesson.
This assumes the GOP is able to learn from it’s mistakes. Sure, they will mouth platitudes, but that will be the extent of it.
I’m certainly no fan of Trump, but a silver lining will be the necessary restructuring of the GOPe. (One can hope, anyways.)
I constantly heard from a frustrated John Podhoretz, Mona Charen, and others on Ricochet about how politicians have been talking about immigration all the time, but the fact remains that there hasn’t been a president skeptical about immigration since Eisenhower.
Immigration is just another part of the political correctness that taxpayers have been funding since the conservative Empower America came out in favor of Proposition 187.
(And I’m speaking as a former Steve Forbes fan.)
~55% of GOP primary voters in almost every state where the question has been asked in exit polls have said that they support “amnesty.” Alabama and Mississippi are the only states where deportation has been more popular than “amnesty.”
Your argument is incorrect, Tom.
Rubio’s problem was that a third of that 55% consistently went to Trump, and the remaining people who were okay with amnesty split among the crowded field of mainstream candidates. If Jeb and Kasich don’t get in, Rubio wins this thing going away.
I still don’t think amnesty is the thing. It’s the least of the concerns of a majority of primary voters. Those for whom it is an issue are strident, but they are a small minority. Clearly not enough to effect the kind of outcome we’ve seen. I think we have to look at the electorate in more broad terms. This wasn’t about issues in particular but about politics and government in general.
Can’t disagree with you Tom. The gang of 8 is a great example of why the feds should never to “comprehensive” anything and Rubio should have run away from anything Schumer was a part of anyway. Of course trump donated money to Schumer but nobody cares about that because nothing matters.
I do think he was the best candidate we had by far and would have killed HRC in a landslide but a lot of people are apparently interested in teaching lessons to our own side than they are beating the other team.
It is very difficult to learn something if not knowing it serves one’s interests. The Republican leadership won’t learn. We all knew Bush couldn’t win, he wasted money that could have gone to Rubio, he attacked Rubio and helped bring him down, split the vote and gave Trump his leg up early on. Bush will go down as the spoiler. Now we’ll start listening to the establishment and the media about Cruz’s not having wider appeal because he is too conservative. That’s wrong to, but it won’t stop the establishment, they can work with Trump or Hillary to keep the pork rolling.
You are more optimistic than me. I don’t even expect them to mouth platitudes. The COC has spoken: Thou shalt not speak of enforcing any kind of immigration law or the donations will stop for all time. So it is written, so it is done.
I question this after the ’12 governor’s race in Washington State. The voters here elected a know-nothing, do-nothing democrat House member over a very popular (80%+ approval ratings), two term Republican Attorney General — and did so by a healthy margin.
Weren’t there, uh, shenanigans involved with that?
Not that one. Gregoire had the shenanigans where they recounted until she won.
Hhhhhhhhhhh… I’m trying here Brent, I’m really trying.
Ah. I knew there was one somewhere.
This is only true if you believe immigration to be paramount over all other issues facing our nation.
The GOP will not learn anything. They’ve shown in their recent analysis of the situation that they need to come to a conclusion that comforts them that they’re in the right and have no need to correct course Thus all the stories that the ‘base’ has been led astray by talk radio, or that they’re hypnotized by Trump, or whatever.
They like the way things are (were) and see no need to change. But this is how marriages and other partnership break-up. One side is satisfied, but the other is decidedly not. If the two sides cannot resolve it – the relationships is over. It seems that the republican leadership has tried to out maneuver their base – they’re looking for a win/lose with their base. If they worked on a compromise, or a win/win with their voters, we might not be here today.
The Redstate report that GOP Senate leadership is demanding Cruz kiss the leadership ring and apologize for calling Mitch “Liar” McConnell a liar before they’ll support him confirms there’s no restructuring on the horizon.
People do care about immigration. It may not be #1 or #2, but they are concerned about it. You can poll all the people you want, but whenever the government tires to push ‘comprehensive immigration reform’, the people revolt. And get angry. The proof’s in the pudding.
Tom,
Yes, the Gang of Eight super Coulter litmus test. I’m still trying to figure this one out. Marco was sucked into a project that the most powerful and devious Senators of both parties were intent upon. He got out before any damage was done. Discontent from conservatives on this was directly addressed by Rubio and he went to CPAC and literally recanted on this issue. Marco Rubio, however, can never be forgiven for this almost sin.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump until very recently not only supported democrats with money but was a democrat. Donald Trump is completely supportive of Partial Birth Abortions, Single Payer Health Care, Neutrality in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and a very liberal sister who he would appoint to the Supreme Court. Donald Trump who has recently suggested that his position on immigration is just a “bargaining” position and he is “flexible”.
Trump can do no wrong and we must not be prejudiced against him. You know like applying some policy oriented litmus test. All of this only makes sense in Ann Coulter’s Wonderland.
Go ask Ann when she’s ten feet tall.
Regards,
Jim
Perhaps, but if immigration was the killer issue, that would have prevented Rubio from getting off the ground in the first place. I wouldn’t say that Rubio never got started; instead, he was a decent contender who couldn’t get over the top.
That is correct — and I didn’t realize the numbers were quite that high — but I didn’t say otherwise:
Perhaps I should have said “a significant and highly motivated number of Republicans who could otherwise…” but that’s not significantly different.
Also, mass deportation is hardly the only alternative to amnesty.
You mean like national security, culture, rule of law, fairness, jobs, politicians keeping promises in general, tax burdens and the economy? Yeah I’d say the immigration issue is paramount.
Yeah, I just think the Go8 thing is wildly overplayed. It turned a significant portion of people off to Rubio, but it didn’t so cripple him that he couldn’t win the nomination. He had an obstacle to overcome, but so did every other candidate. Jeb had his name and his positions on immigration and common core, Cruz had his shutdown grandstanding and unlikable demeanor, Christie had the embrace of Obama and his many liberal positions … I could go on and list the problems with the other candidates that were just as bad if not worse than the Go8 for Rubio.
His problem was an overly crowded field that overlapped with his base of support more than others, and unfortunate scheduling putting too much emphasis in the south first. And of course there was the Trump factor which is what is ultimately going to be the thing that kills every other GOP candidate this year, including Cruz.
Not everyone lumps all those in together. As it has been pointed out 55% of Republican voters favor amnesty.
Immigration may not have been the only downside for Rubio, but it was mine. Due to his support for the “Gang of 8” bill, which fortunately did not pass, he was always my 3rd place, recently 2nd place candidate. Trump never makes my list at all, but who cares, not enough. I think Rubio was likely 2nd or 3rd for a lot of people, and now he is gone.
But I think his career is not necessarily damaged forever, if he continues in politics, and supports the positions he espoused during the campaign, conservatives will take that into account, and in 4, 8, 12, 16 years might give him another look. Reagan didn’t get selected in his first try either.
Disagree. It’s also true if 1) Enough Republicans believe it to be that important; and 2) You don’t want to deep-six your career over.
I’m a nationalist, but I don’t rank immigration enforcement nearly as highly as many others. What kills me is that a significant number of party leaders — exemplified by the Go8 — both think important is super important and want to go against much of their base on this. That’s just dumb.
Don’t the tendentious polls that claim that most Americans favor amnesty remind others of the polls way back in the 1980s and early 1990s that showed that most Americans favored “reasonable gun control?”
The Democrats believed those polls, right up until 1994.
But as it has been pointed out – its not even a majority position among Republicans, let alone the broader electorate.
No, they don’t favor ‘amnesty’. People keeps saying this and its misleading. The data shows they’re willing to make a compromise – normalizing status for illegals who’ve been here a long time and have committed no crimes, and if they pay real penalties, learn the language and assimilate to a rational degree. And for this the people want enforcement of the laws – they want the unfettered illegal immigration to stop. The want a controlled system for the future.
Gang of 8 was not going to do this – it was a fraud against the American people. Like Obamacare – the government promised one thing, but the law’s effect was something else. It had such ‘flexibility’ built-in that pretty much everyone, including all but the most hardened criminals and new arrivals could gain status, for almost no real penalties. And the enforcement language was flexible enough to allow almost no enforcement if government didn’t want it – and they don’t appear to really want it.
It was a dishonest “compromise” in that one side gets all it wants, while the other gets only empty promises.
And this is what Rubio signed on for.