2016 Is Rubio’s Fault

 

I know there are many people who just love Senator Marco Rubio. I have long said that his Gang of Eight involvement did him in, on symbolism more than substance. I’ve also been told that Senator Ted Cruz was there with Rubio 99 percent of the way before he cynically changed paths. The problem is, Rubio was part of the Gang and Cruz never was; that matters, and we’re seeing its effects to this day. On NRO, Peter Spiliakos wrote a post yesterday that really hit this home for me:

Rubio proposed wage subsidies, tax breaks for middle-class parents, and reforming our welfare system to encourage work and family formation, but Rubio’s immigration flip-flop obscured his policy proposals. What is even worse, Rubio’s immigration position undercut his reformist policies. Even more than the flip-flops for which he was constantly attacked by the other candidates, even more than the hideous unpopularity of some parts of the immigration policy he supported, the Gang of Eight bill undermined Rubio’s argument about the lives of the struggling… [E]ven as he was proposing wage subsidies and relocation vouchers to help low earners, Rubio was proposing using the immigration system to increase the ranks of the low-skilled and low-earning. It was an absurdity.

And:

The self-contradictory nature of Rubio’s politics can be summed up in two sets of quotes. In his poverty speech, Rubio talked about “reforms that encourage and reward work.” In private, a Rubio aide argued for expansion of a low-skill guest-worker program on the pretext that currently unemployed Americans “can’t cut it.”

Without this flip-flop, there would have been no immigration issue for Trump to latch on too. Rubio could have walked away with the nomination. Instead, he had to sell-out ordinary Americans to the donor class. And now we have him to thank for four to eight years of Hillary Clinton.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 270 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Concretevol Thatcher
    Concretevol
    @Concretevol

    I agree with a lot of the article and Rubio was stupid to be involved with anything that Schumer was a part of but I don’t agree with your final conclusion.  Trump would have still had the immigration issue regardless of Rubio…..there still would have been all the talk of “comprehensive immigration reform” and there still would have been a Jeb campaign.  If you recall, it was a hot button issue 4 years ago that Perry took a beating over because of his position as Texas governor giving financial aid to children of illegal immigrants for tuition.  Yeah Rubio hurt his own candidacy by being anywhere near the gang of 8 but he isn’t to blame for the Trump train anymore than the other candidates that failed to win the primary.

    • #1
  2. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Ah, a preview of coming attractions.  I understand that there’s a significant degree of irony intended here, but I’m guessing finger-pointing of this nature, without the irony, will be more the rule than the exception if and when Trump goes down.

    • #2
  3. EB Thatcher
    EB
    @EB

    Really?

    The only people to blame for Trump are the less than a majority number of voters in the Republican primary who looked at a narcissistic, boorish, unethical oaf who has a proven track record of changing his “principles” and his “story” every year, month, or week and has pursued money above all else his entire life and said – “Yeah, that’s the man for me!”

    • #3
  4. Casey Inactive
    Casey
    @Casey

    All too neat and tidy. I can believe at the margins that Rubio lost primary voters to Cruz because of this. I can’t believe that nearly 20% of the 85% who don’t typically show up for primaries were moved to do so because of this.

    • #4
  5. Baker Inactive
    Baker
    @Baker

    I think you’re missing a piece of this, Rubio walked from the Gang. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/20/rubio-breaks-gang-eight/

    He was trying to get immigration reform passed, like everyone knows needs to be done, and working in an administration very hostile to conservative plans. Trying to get a conservative voice in there wasn’t a bad thought and he walked when he it didn’t work. No?

    Now, thanks to the actions as @eb laid out above, instead of something we only partially like, we’ll get nothing and be forced to like it. Unless we can hold the Senate. I hear there is a guy in Florida we really need reelected.

    • #5
  6. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    On the other hand if we would have passed the bill then the whole issue would have been done with. So really Trump is the fault of the Republicans that refused to go along with comprehensive immigration reform. See, we can all play this game.

    • #6
  7. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Rubio was a rising star. He blew himself up on a landmine of immigration. The Gang of 8 was hugely symbolic.

    Symbols are the most important thing in politics. That is why so many people don’t care about the lout that Trump is. He is playing on symbols.

    It is quite clear that most of the conservative chattering classes, (Us Ricochet members included), are not grasping that. We have wonky facts and policies stances. We parse liberty and freedom at the level of zoning and pot use. Any move against Free Trade is obviously wrong on the facts, so there is no need to address the feels.

    The biggest challenge we face, I think, it understanding it is all about the feels. It always has been and it always will be. Symbols are how you speak to the feels. This is why Trumps “flip flop” on immigration that the NeverTrump crowd is cackling about means nothing to the supporters. Trump was never going to kick out 11 million people. But people got his overall point.

    Symbols.

    • #7
  8. Baker Inactive
    Baker
    @Baker

    Bryan G. Stephens:Symbols are the most important thing in politics. That is why so many people don’t care about the lout that Trump is. He is playing on symbols.

    Sure. And I think it’s pretty symbolically bad when asked about Putin killing journalists, he says, “well we kill people too.” Pretty symbolic. Example 1 of 1000.

    (I still reject your premise but if you want to talk about “symbols”…)

    • #8
  9. V.S. Blackford Inactive
    V.S. Blackford
    @VSBlackford

    There are a lot of reasons as to why this election year will likely be a bust for the presidency, but I don’t think we can lay it all on one particular candidate.

    On a positive note, two GOP incumbents are doing well for the moment. Rob Portman in OH and Toomey in PA are up in the polls. The Democrats have their own problems with a very weak bench from which to draw appealing candidates. The best they could do in Ohio this year was bring back Ted Strickland, a governor who lost his reelection bid in 2010. This speaks well of the success the GOP has had in off-year elections at winning seats at the state level.

    • #9
  10. Baker Inactive
    Baker
    @Baker

    Bryan G. Stephens:Rubio was a rising star. He blew himself up on a landmine of immigration. The Gang of 8 was hugely symbolic.

    This is part of the problem in D.C. No one ever solves anything big because except in the most rare circumstances, that requires some compromise. Then you’re a RINO and traitor.

    • #10
  11. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    The biggest challenge we face, I think, it understanding it is all about the feels. It always has been and it always will be. Symbols are how you speak to the feels. This is why Trumps “flip flop” on immigration that the NeverTrump crowd is cackling about means nothing to the supporters. Trump was never going to kick out 11 million people. But people got his overall point.

    Perhaps “people” applies to you and a small amount of others who didn’t really buy what Trump was selling, other than as a “symbol.”  But overall it’s revisionist.  Fortunately, it’s not that long ago when Trump rode a single substantive (as opposed to symbolic) issue (well, maybe trade as well) to an insurmountable lead in the early primaries.  And, yes, a substantial number of people expected Trump to start kicking a substantial number of people out of the country, even if he didn’t quite get to 11 million.  As to why Trump’s alleged flip flop means nothing to his supporters . . . well, what are they supposed to say?

    • #11
  12. Guruforhire Inactive
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    Putin!  Drink!

    • #12
  13. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Well, fast track to the Main Feed.

    • #13
  14. Casey Inactive
    Casey
    @Casey

    Bryan G. Stephens: Symbols

    I do agree with you about symbols. And I do agree this was symbolic.  But who was it symbolic for?

    I find it quite a stretch to say it was a meaningful symbol for those who typically aren’t engaged enough to vote in primaries. I bet you couldn’t find 1 in 100 who heard of it.

    I don’t mean to say they are stupid low information people. I hate that. I mean they are normal.

    The people who know about these things in detail are rather abnormal and they make decisions differently than normal people. In other words, abnormal people see a giant chasm between Cruz and Rubio. Normal people see them as basically the same.

    Everyone saw a giant chasm between Trump and the field.

    • #14
  15. Terry Mott Member
    Terry Mott
    @TerryMott

    Baker:

    Bryan G. Stephens:Rubio was a rising star. He blew himself up on a landmine of immigration. The Gang of 8 was hugely symbolic.

    This is part of the problem in D.C. No one ever solves anything big because except in the most rare circumstances, that requires some compromise. Then you’re a RINO and traitor.

    The problem with “compromise” as it is normally practiced by the beltway GOP is that they’re too comfortable with the status quo.  If the Dems ask for 10% growth in government, the GOP will counter with 0% growth and compromise on 5% (of course, on top of the automatic increase built in to the baseline budgeting B.S.) and claim that’s the best they could do.  If anyone comes along and tries to change the terms of the debate to really pull things in the other direction, they’re a bomb-thrower that “doesn’t work well with others” and “doesn’t understand how things are done”.

    • #15
  16. BD Member
    BD
    @

    Rubio was called by some the best conservative candidate since Reagan.  His signature issue was “wage subsidies”.

    • #16
  17. Josh Inactive
    Josh
    @Josh

    I’m glad that nobody is around to hold me to every mistake I’ve made over the span of my life. The GO8 deal wasn’t good. Rubio got taken advantage of. He wanted to make a difference, and he picked the wrong legislation to jump on with & try to do that. But it failed. After leaving the Senate, it got dropped in the House. So, what we are arguing here is that a bunch of people did not vote for someone because of a failed piece of legislation. One of the ugliest part of politics to me is how every move is questioned. Rubio got run out of town because people did not agree with one policy decision he made. Why does it matter? He understands the powers granted to the POTUS, so it’s not like he would have been trying to ram legislation down our throats via executive order, a sentiment I cannot share about our current nominee who doesn’t even understand how the balance of powers works. The voter base held one decision against a man & now acts offended when people like me won’t vote for Donny boy because he has a lifetime of evidence showing what a terrible president he would be. Again, all I’m saying is I don’t think we would much appreciate it if people treated us & our mistakes like we’re acting about Rubio & his.

    • #17
  18. Austin Murrey Inactive
    Austin Murrey
    @AustinMurrey

    Well it was getting a bit quiet around here so I guess I understand why you started to throw rocks at the hornets’ nest.

    I actually subscribe to the class-avatar theory from Ace of Spades about why people adore Rubio and Trump (there are some hardcore fans of other candidate’s but those two have the most passionate adherents by far) – it’s all about which one represents your social class.

    Rubio appeals best to the college-educated urbanites, the more upper-middle class the more he’s liked because he’s an avatar of their idea of themselves – self-made, sophisticated, erudite.

    Trump appeals more to the working class voters, both rural and urban, who see themselves as straight shooters and can-do.

    There’s cross-over amongst all groups (there always is) but if you drill down most people’s attachment isn’t intellectual or ideological but emotional. Republicans since Reagan have generally been terrible about emotional connections with the voters.

    Rubio had two additional advantages that should have secured him the nomination: he’s Cuban and therefore supporting him proves you’re not racist and he’s good looking for a politician so people excuse his extraordinary ambition and blatant political calculations in a way they don’t for his near-identical counterpart Ted Cruz. (They’re really are uncannily similar, it’s baffling.)

    • #18
  19. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Bryan G. Stephens: Without this flip-flop, there would have been no immigration issue for Trump to latch on too. Rubio could have walked away with the nomination. Instead, he had to sell-out ordinary Americans to the donor class. And now we have him to thank for four to eight years of Hillary Clinton.

    I blame the GOP Establishment and the donor class more than I blame Rubio.  Rubio merely decided to make himself their tool.

    Even now the Establishment is focusing its energies, not on defeating Hillary, but on purifying its ranks of tea-party type Republicans.

    • #19
  20. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Given that Trump has assumed the exact position on immigration that Rubio proposed and most of his supporters are falling all over themselves to make excuses, I don’t find this analysis particularly insightful.

    • #20
  21. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Austin Murrey:I actually subscribe to the class-avatar theory from Ace of Spades about why people adore Rubio and Trump (there are some hardcore fans of other candidate’s but those two have the most passionate adherents by far) – it’s all about which one represents your social class.

    Rubio appeals best to the college-educated urbanites, the more upper-middle class the more he’s liked because he’s an avatar of their idea of themselves – self-made, sophisticated, erudite.

    Trump appeals more to the working class voters, both rural and urban, who see themselves as straight shooters and can-do.

    There’s cross-over amongst all groups (there always is) but if you drill down most people’s attachment isn’t intellectual or ideological but emotional. Republicans since Reagan have generally been terrible about emotional connections with the voters.

    There’s a lot of insight here that I think hits most closely to the truth.

    • #21
  22. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Jamie Lockett:Given that Trump has assumed the exact position on immigration that Rubio proposed and most of his supporters are falling all over themselves to make excuses, I don’t find this analysis particularly insightful.

    “Assume the position.”  That’s the problem with our politics.  People think that’s informative.

    • #22
  23. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    Josh: Rubio got run out of town because people did not agree with one policy decision he made

    The policy decision in question matters. He did not make a wrong choice on an Agriculture or Transportation bill. No one ever even reads those things. He was wrong on Immigration. Congress and Pres. Bush tried immigration reform multiple times and failed.  A not small portion of the Republican electorate had been sending signal since Bush that they did not like the “comprehensive” reforms Washington was producing.

    • #23
  24. Austin Murrey Inactive
    Austin Murrey
    @AustinMurrey

    Jamie Lockett:

    Austin Murrey:I actually subscribe to the class-avatar theory from Ace of Spades about why people adore Rubio and Trump (there are some hardcore fans of other candidate’s but those two have the most passionate adherents by far) – it’s all about which one represents your social class.

    Rubio appeals best to the college-educated urbanites, the more upper-middle class the more he’s liked because he’s an avatar of their idea of themselves – self-made, sophisticated, erudite.

    Trump appeals more to the working class voters, both rural and urban, who see themselves as straight shooters and can-do.

    There’s cross-over amongst all groups (there always is) but if you drill down most people’s attachment isn’t intellectual or ideological but emotional. Republicans since Reagan have generally been terrible about emotional connections with the voters.

    There’s a lot of insight here that I think hits most closely to the truth.

    What’s so surprising about this cycle is that all the protestations about abandoning unpopular social positions or big tents turned out to be completely false: people didn’t want different people to vote Republican, they wanted more people to be like them and therefore to vote Republican. When people who were different entered the tent, the avowed big-tenters started throwing popcorn and eventually ran for the exits.

    • #24
  25. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    The Reticulator:  I blame the GOP Establishment and the donor class more than I blame Rubio. Rubio merely decided to make himself their tool.

    I’m guessing that, deep down, Rubio still believes that he did essentially the right thing in trying to get out ahead on immigration, even if it meant associating with the likes of Schumer. He will, of course, never say that, and likely recognizes his stance as a political mistake. But, until the book is closed on immigration, none of us really knows what we’ll end up with.

    • #25
  26. rebark Inactive
    rebark
    @rebark

    So you’re saying that Rubio should have seen his campaign’s failure coming because of this?

    Why?

    Why should he have been able to predict that Trump voters would consider a flip-flop on immigration to be the greatest sin imaginable…until it wasn’t? Until flip flopping on this issue was just fine because Donnie did it and we all love and support Donnie? Those who found Rubio’s flip-flop unforgivable have flip-flopped.

    I sure can’t predict people like that. I’m willing to let Rubio off the hook for his inability to as well.

    • #26
  27. EB Thatcher
    EB
    @EB

    Jamie Lockett:Given that Trump has assumed the exact position on immigration that Rubio proposed and most of his supporters are falling all over themselves to make excuses, I don’t find this analysis particularly insightful.

    Ann Coulter was apparently wrong.

    She wrote the following on page 3 of her new book about how awesome Trump is: ‘There’s nothing Trump can do that won’t be forgiven. Except change his immigration policies.”

    • #27
  28. KC Mulville Inactive
    KC Mulville
    @KCMulville

    Rubio’s been out of the race for several months, so why pick now to analyze him? I think it’s probably because Trump has been so underwhelming as a general election candidate, thus ensuring the hated Hillary coronation, and there’s no need to hesitate about the outcome – and the ensuing aftermath.

    I don’t think it’s over quite yet, on the grounds that Hillary is such a displeasing character that she’s capable of giving it away at any moment. Can you imagine four years of that grating voice? We’ll all be looking for solace with interns after two years.

    After all, any number of scandals could hit. (Note: it does feel a little wrong to “hope” for yet another scandal of national proportion, doesn’t it?) Besides, I want Trump to do one of his name-calling stand-up comedy routines during the debates, just to unleash the Ice Queen for all to see. She has a temper, and if she’s provoked she’ll start throwing furniture, like she reportedly did with Bill in the White House frequently. Trump should hammer her on all the scandals and corruption, and watch her unravel.

    Hey, a guy can hope, can’t he?

    • #28
  29. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    Jamie Lockett:Given that Trump has assumed the exact position on immigration that Rubio proposed and most of his supporters are falling all over themselves to make excuses, I don’t find this analysis particularly insightful.

    If immigration reform was not the issue that kept Rubio from winning what was? On paper he should have been the clear favorite. The only negative I ever heard about Rubio was immigration.

    It does not matter what Trump does now, Rubio is out of the race. Rubio is out of the race because he made a wrong bet on immigration. Trump can do what ever flip-flopping he wants cause anything he says on immigration is still going to be “stronger” than Clinton.

    • #29
  30. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Austin Murrey:

    Jamie Lockett:

    Austin Murrey:I actually subscribe to the class-avatar theory from Ace of Spades about why people adore Rubio and Trump (there are some hardcore fans of other candidate’s but those two have the most passionate adherents by far) – it’s all about which one represents your social class.

    Rubio appeals best to the college-educated urbanites, the more upper-middle class the more he’s liked because he’s an avatar of their idea of themselves – self-made, sophisticated, erudite.

    Trump appeals more to the working class voters, both rural and urban, who see themselves as straight shooters and can-do.

    There’s cross-over amongst all groups (there always is) but if you drill down most people’s attachment isn’t intellectual or ideological but emotional. Republicans since Reagan have generally been terrible about emotional connections with the voters.

    There’s a lot of insight here that I think hits most closely to the truth.

    What’s so surprising about this cycle is that all the protestations about abandoning unpopular social positions or big tents turned out to be completely false: people didn’t want different people to vote Republican, they wanted more people to be like them and therefore to vote Republican. When people who were different entered the tent, the avowed big-tenters started throwing popcorn and eventually ran for the exits.

    I think a lot of us assumed, based on conservative media, that most of the people who weren’t like us socially at least shared similar commitments to ideological positions. Turned out that wasn’t true.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.