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.
Power, Limited Government, and Marco Rubio
Marco Rubio in 2009 by DavidAll06 – via Flickr.
Every conservative candidate says the government has too much power … until he enters government and tastes it for himself. This is not a problem of one specific political party, political class, or establishment, and it is not a problem solved by electing an outsider. It is an age-old problem of human nature. A candidate may condemn presidential overreach on the campaign trail — perhaps even believing his own words — but won’t be able to relinquish the reins of power once handed them, or to let go and allow Congress and the states to work their will.
This question is why one minor point in Sen. Marco Rubio’s biography leaped off the screen and caught my eye:
It was the way that Rubio restructured the [Florida] speaker’s office that surprised many capital insiders. After spending years to secure one of the most influential positions in Florida government, he relinquished his biggest power.
To oversimplify, Rubio gave up the close control the speaker’s office once had over the House’s legislative process, handing significant power back to committee chairs. The details of the Florida legislative system are complicated and boring, but Rubio’s changes went beyond mere willingness to delegate: It was a concrete, meaningful de-centralisation of power.
There were reasons, of course. Rubio wanted to present a clear contrast to his predecessor. He was not being idealistically naive, and he hardly avoided all the rough-and-tumble of politics. The new arrangement worked to his political benefit, just as executive restraint could have political advantages for a president willing to step back.
Even before his speakership, in his various roles in legislative leadership, Rubio generally let the process work and made his case to his members on the merits, rather than issuing political decrees from the top and arm-twisting members into going along. “He could convince you on a policy basis … It wasn’t your typical you-have-to-fall-in-line kind of threat.”
It is worth noting that the policy cases he made were conservative, and that Rubio held a difficult spot, caught between the moderate governor and the state senate. In 2010, it may have been politically advantageous to run to Charlie Crist’s right; in 2007, however, Crist was still a very popular governor, and standing up to him — as Rubio did — required real political nerve.
Rubio had convictions, and he fought for them, but he also resisted the urge to gather all power in his own hands, or to seek control of the process beyond his legitimate authority. When Rubio promises to end executive abuses on Day One, we should remember that the last time he held power, one of his earliest acts was indeed to give up some of that power.
If we want a president to exercise restraint in clear contrast to Obama, that quality is something we should consider.
Published in Politics
Rubio on immigration
Yes, I read that. I found the Eagle Forum piece so clearly biased as to be unhelpful.
I will partially defend him on one point. They attack him as lying for saying that certain things in the bill would be fixed, when the Senate didn’t. But Rubio didn’t see the Senate bill as the final product. Obviously, the House did evidently object to some of those things. We will never know what they would have taken out, since instead they let the whole bill die. That is just as well, but it means Rubio’s proposition is untested — which may be unfair to Rubio.
Now I have no doubt that Rubio, at the least, played politics and engaged in spin. He may well have lied outright. Sadly, that’s true of them all. Both Trump and Cruz said things in the last debate that were flagrantly untrue. (Cruz’s approach to Common Core really, really bothers me — he’s dishonest in a way that can do real damage. But that’s a separate post.) Christie was dishonest about Rubio.
Maybe Kasich told the truth. I admit I didn’t pay enough attention.
He has more experience than Cruz has.
It’s still a mystery to me why out of Iowa’s top three Rubio is the one who got the experience questions.
I read that little piece then decided to read into the bill itself (or at least the latest version of it before it was killed in the senate).
One statement from Krikorian stood out to me “Rubio also lied about the size of the bill’s unprecedented increase in legal immigration, he lied about the scope of waivers, he lied about welfare eligibility, he lied to law enforcement about amnesty for gang members.”
(3) INELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC BENEFITS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- An alien who has been granted registered provisional immigrant status under this section is not eligible for any Federal means-tested public benefit (as defined and implemented in section 403 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1613)).
`(B) AUDITS- The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall conduct regular audits to ensure that registered provisional immigrants are not fraudulently receiving any of the benefits described in subparagraph (A).
That was under Title II. Immigrant Visas, Subtitle A: Registration and Adjustment of Registered Provisional Immigrants which deals with registering illegals as legals under the term provisional immigrant.
So either Krikorian is lying or Eagle Forum is lying because the very language of the bill itself says otherwise. Those that would be legalized would not be receiving federal welfare.
I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but really, who do you think strikes you as more detrimental to the left’s conservative caricature?
Rubio has an actual history of results in terms of leadership with legislatures towards conservative goals and has won multiple election campaigns (several at the state level and now one at the national level).
He has repeatedly articulated conservatism in an appealing way. He can actually speak Spanish (not try to emphasis the scum that is multi-culturalism) and thus has some cross cultural appeal, and has the conviction to say things like
The left and many in the media have hammered the right as abortion crazies with the likes of Todd Adkin. Rubio’s excellent answer just highlights that such issues are not ones which the right will always lose on but can rather win on.
He comes across as sincere and with conviction while others can at times come off as calculated or cold and perhaps even old. He is what the left fears most (an optimistic conservative).
Well, that hits the credibility of that article pretty hard.
It’s possible they believe some other section of the bill undermines that particular provision. If so, they are not necessarily lying — but the onus is on them to make that case, and the unsupported assertion that Rubio lied — when the law said what he said it did — is inappropriate. They did not prove his dishonesty.
Edit: also possible that some Democrat misrepresented what the bill said for completely different purposes to a different audience, and that its opponents (understandably) took that as the truth. Not a stretch; I’ve seen that happening recently with education.
What ticks me off is that neither of those sources specifically point to the language of the bill that supports their claim and that is their burden to meet first and foremost as they are arguing that Rubio is a liar on the issue.
Regardless, such criticism from Krikorian (even if it was true) does not disprove the argument that Rubio was trying to make the bill as conservative as possible in the senate so that it could pass with support from the senate to the house of representatives, which had a far greater number of conservatives that would then author a severely altered version of the senate bill that would be more favorable to conservative solutions.
Such would require reconciliation and even if it failed (both houses were unwilling to agree to one bill) it would show that conservatives were willing to legislate for the betterment of the nation on an important issue. But Cruz killed that possibility and now I get to read about how Rubio is a shill of the Chamber of Commerce.
That’s the lazy man’s approach. Then again the possibility of having to read through an entire bill about reforming the border could perhaps be daunting to some, as it might require having to read quite a bit.
Regardless, such shouldn’t matter as conservatives we should care about being honest, about the truth. Not our subjective whims and disdain for those that might appear to have a different vision than our own.
Well, not quite as lazy as that — on the ESSA provision I have in mind it’s not a question of the words but a question of their interpretation. Some Obama admin allies are spinning a little, and some conservatives bought the spin, because they don’t trust Congress (for which I don’t blame them). Nobody can develop the expertise to discern the truth on every issue.
Granted that Krikorian should know better. Again, maybe he has a substantive case against Rubio on the point, and maybe he’s made it in the past — but this article he linked didn’t do it, so for now Rubio gets the benefit of the doubt.
I’m not surprised that an attack like the one on Rubio’s immigration stance would be full of falsehoods. Those who oppose Rubio on immigration grounds have sufficient true arguments to hang their hats on.
This is much like the attack on Rubio that he supports a bill that would remove due process rights from male students accused of sexual assault on campus. The bill, which he does support, does no such thing. I’ve pointed that out several times on Ricochet and asked those making the claim against Rubio to show me where in the bill it says what they claim it says. I’m still waiting.
But it was co-sponsored by a Democrat!
Could be Anyone:
Could you make a post on this and your first comment on the legislation, please? It comes up so often. That Eagle Forum piece and Krikorian’s response are gospel to lots of people I know.
Agreed. Just a calm measured fact-checking piece — especially a well-supported one — could be useful.
Leigh,
At the end of the day, small government isn’t really an issue in this election. I wish it were. I think Rubio’s actions as speaker reflect favorably on him, but even if you could convince people that Rubio is a good limited government person, you have to convince them that limited government is a good thing. Even in a Republican primary, that is looking more and more like a hard sell.
Oh my.
Rubio, the intrepid Senator behind the G8 bill, promised “certain things in the bill would be fixed” but then he really, really, really only meant that the House would fix it. He wasn’t doing no fixin’ himself with his own Gang.
Ok…uh.. sorry..uh…our mistake; we really really really didn’t know what he really really really meant.
Well, Koolie, Rubio was actually right in expecting the more conservative House to refuse to pass those parts of the bill. After all, none of them are law today. Sure it was a procedural risky game, and I don’t endorse it. But snark doesn’t prove he was lying in expecting the House wouldn’t pass the bill in original form.
Plus after the one obvious error exposed above I would have to see Rubio’s words compared to the actual text. I don’t trust that source to present Rubio or the bill accurately.
Leigh, I wasn’t quite saying that Rubio lied, only marveling, somewhat surprised, at how readily you seemed to be willing to rationalize on his behalf.
My rule of thumb is that Senators, who with their Gang wrote the bills in question, should not promise changes if they really meant changes to their bill are actually out of their control and would be delegated to the House– unless they are qualify their promises openly, transparently, honestly. That’s my rule of thumb, that’s all.
Btw, didn’t mean to sound snarky, only playfully critical, as friends would.
I’ll take playful criticism :)
But please do note that I only said I “partially defend” Rubio on that point. And that I had no doubt that he engaged in spin. And that he may well have outright lied — just that their evidence on this one point doesn’t prove it. And, earlier, that I don’t pretend to claim I know he has some kind of unstained, sterling moral character. I’m not a blind biased Rubio fan trying to rationalize everything. I agree with your rule of thumb. I only found the screaming he lied to us!!! far from proven — and if you’re not quite saying he lied either, we’re actually on the same page.
There’s a difference between an overoptimistic promise about something out of one’s control (which politicians — and some children –are prone to, as I know) and a deliberate knowing lie intended to deceive people about what you are trying to do.
Well, I did not write it expecting to sway the election — I don’t have any illusions about that! Only to point out something I personally found relevant and thought others here might as well.
But I do not think you’re quite right, at least about the state coming up next. In South Carolina there is a portion of the electorate to which this matters very much. The upstate is Jim DeMint territory. And it’s a state where there is a lot of frustration about politicians going to Washington or Columbia and becoming part of Washington or Columbia. The issues get muddled in passion and personality and so forth, but the idea that the government shouldn’t be doing certain things is very much part of the conversation.
I hope you are right.
It just seems like not long ago, people on the Right were angry about not being able to repeal Obamacare and now a lot of them are flock to the one candidate who is sympathetic to something involving even more government. It doesn’t seem like it is a high priority.
Like I said, I hope you are right.
I agree. It does seem that immigration has replaced Obamacare as the One Thing That Matters, with no substantial justification, for a certain part of the punditry, and that troubles me too.
But Trump has a plurality, not a majority. I don’t know precisely how much government overreach is a factor in the minds of SC voters. I just am prepared to say I know it is an issue for some of them.
Since you “had no doubt that he engaged in spin” we are close but not quite “on the same page.” I wasn’t quite saying that he lied but there was some dishonesty; and if I had to judge, I would tend to come down on the Eagle Forum’s side. I get their sense of betrayal, hearing promises only to find out something else is meant–on an issue of the utmost importance to them.
We are in the realm of politics and your standard for a lie–intent to deceive–would likely absolve most politicians of committing the lie, their most ubiquitous sin and greatest gift. For Eagle Forum to say Rubio lied is fair game, in my view, completely understandable and worthy of consideration.
I’m confused — you don’t believe most politicians intend to deceive?
Part of my caution is that I don’t trust that Eagle Forum article to have the facts straight. If they are blatantly wrong on one point, I can’t trust their analysis on the other. The tone throughout has the feel of a hit piece to me. Once its reliability is undermined, there is too much potential for distortion in that kind of piece.
I’m especially cynical about that type of outraged article just now because I’ve shortened my life lately by reading some of that type on education, where I actually know what is going on. There’s an absolutely ridiculous attack on Cruz swirling around claiming a bill he supports would “federalize homeschooling.” It’s sheer, complete, utter, bizarre nonsense. And even in the absolute worst-case scenario that the bill is misguided and could have unintended consequences (it looks fine to me), that wouldn’t prove Cruz has some hidden agenda.
I don’t know immigration nearly so well as education, but that Eagle Forum piece reads too much like that kind of attack to me.
I believe most politicians too readily and too easily resort to deceit. I don’t think the standard should be to prove intent to deceive before we can justifiably call out their lies. That is too fine a standard because voters are never privy enough to the intricate maneuverings and machinations underlying their decisions to be able to prove intent to deceive. At our distance, we can only reason from A to B to C and come to our own conclusions.
I sympathize with your caution, a good rule of thumb.
For myself, I wasn’t following Gang of 8 closely when it happened, but I was following it. I was aware then who were out there promoting G8 and who were out there fighting G8. So my opinion of Rubio has taken a turn for the worse given how he has tried to defend himself by insincerely trying to rewrite history–rather than owning up and moving forward positively. The path of defense Rubio has chosen reignites so many doubts about his character and potential fishiness as a politician.
So from my vantage point, I stand with the thrust of the EagleForum critique, which admittedly was out to get Rubio.
He should bring it up at the debates. He should include it in his advertisements.
Well, I wrote the post, and I can’t figure out how to write the advertisement or debate point. If his team can, I’d love to see it.