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.
Rubio: Man-Boy Candidate Promises Less of the Same
Marco Rubio by Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0.
While a boy’s face on a man’s body may be the romantic ideal for some, it serves only to reinforce Republican primary voters’ skepticism about Sen. Marco Rubio’s lack of skepticism about government interventionism. The Florida senator’s political instincts have led him to believe, among other things, that the US immigration crisis can only be addressed through comprehensive reform, a mutually-exclusive term favored by pundits, progressives, and “soft values” Republicans like Rubio.
When the senator from Florida invokes “context” in attempting to explain away his since-disavowed support for amnesty, one is reminded of a petulant child attempting to rationalize wrongdoing rather than a respectable grownup who straightforwardly asks for forgiveness and moves on.
Rubio, it seems, possesses a Peter Pan complex in reverse: a political boy who desperately wishes to be a political man. One gets the impression of an eager-beaver naif easily seduced by big, juicy ideas advanced by big, juicy government.
It shouldn’t be surprising, then, that the man who cited US security in supporting the invasion of Libya should do the same when defending his risible, regrettable belief that — absent government handouts to Florida sugar growers — the America is at risk of “losing the capacity to produce our own food, at which point we’re at the mercy of a foreign country for food security”. (Other than pundits refraining from affixing “-gate” to every political scandal, my political dream is an end to invoking “security” when discussing energy issues and, now, in the case of Rubio, sugar. Sugar).
That Sen. Ted Cruz won the Iowa caucuses while issuing full-throated opposition to ethanol subsidies further suggests that Rubio is the Bobby Darin of contemporary American politics: a relatively young man whose moment has already passed while trying desperately to appeal to an audience that has discovered rock’n’roll and in no mood for a new cover of “Beyond The Sea.”
Rubio fluently speaks the language of limited government while giving the impression that he’d be much more at home speaking Rockefeller Republicanism. His boyish desire to please does not befit a man seeking to be a conservative president in the mold of Coolidge or Reagan.
Conservatives rightly fear that Rubio is, in the words of Peter Robinson, a little soft. For example, while comfortable enough deflecting blame onto Obama and the Democrats for government shutdowns, it doesn’t even seem to occur to Rubio to do what the moment seemed to demand: namely, taking credit for them.
Seemingly far more confident in the American experiment, the equally young Cruz stands in direct contrast to Rubio in his frumpiness and breath-of-fresh-air arrogance. Cruz, unlike every other candidate in the field, offers the tantalizing possibility of a return to self-government, where Hillary Clinton promises more of the same and Rubio the weak beer of less of the same.
Published in Politics
Dr. Rahe,
One of my ulterior theses has been that we need not make up our mind on this. We’ll make our own decisions as each state takes their turn. But, I’m not sure that an exercise in rigidity is what’s called for until one is headed to the polls or their caucus.
Or maybe one wants to be sure before hand. I just don’t feel that way.
Again, this is a decent case against Rubio’s position. But it’s not a case that he lied in referencing accurately what the law said about welfare.
Rubio is a limited-government conservative in this context, one must remember. By the time they’re eligible for benefits — which is a matter of years — he would hope of course to have them integrated into the work force and paying taxes, not drawing benefits.
It doesn’t matter whether or not he lied that’s merely a distraction. It matters what his policy intent is. The fact that he knows enough to thread the Needle of Barely True means he wasn’t duped. If he was duped and didn’t know the content of his own bill then he should never be put in a position to have the final veto on bills unless he was elected to “lead not read”. That whole “naive” canard should be put to rest.
If you expect untold millions of poorly educated first generation immigrants, who have a basic understanding of english at best and living among themselves, to integrate into a 21st century foreign economy within 5-10 years; you’re dreaming. Furthermore, what’s to stem more illegal workers working under the table to replace the legalized ones?
This really took up more time than I wanted to spend on this. If you want to respond, I’ll read it and you can have the last word. Like I said before, I don’t think we’ll convince each other.
Rubio is the Bobby Darin of contemporary American politics: a relatively young man whose moment has already passed while trying desperately to appeal to an audience that has discovered rock’n’roll and in no mood for a new cover of “Beyond The Sea.”
Brilliant. Poetic. I can hear that rock’n’roll right now:
‘Who tells me baby better come back later next week
Cause you see I’m on a losing streak
I can’t get no, oh no, no, no.’
@CB-for my part I’m not really offering a policy defense on the bill. That Eagle Forum article is a massive attack on Rubio’s character, and it’s getting a lot of attention. After a close look, I don’t find it a credible source. That’s my main contention.
The character question is a bigger deal to some than the policy on this. That’s how I got into reading it in the first place. If it’s not relevant to you, that’s understandable. Likewise need to get off. Good night…
But Rube still thinks it’s The Right Thing To Do. If he thought he could push an amnesty bill through, he’d do it in half a heartbeat. The only lesson he learned from the Gang of Eight is that voters don’t like amnesty, so he needs to tell more and bigger lies about his position on it.
Have you ruled out stupidity? The sham “border security” provisions of the Gang of Eight bill were so laughable that the only three possible explanations for Rube’s support for them are are:
Any of those explanations is disqualifying, in my opinion. I will not vote for Rube in the primaries, and I will not vote for him in the general, if (God help us) he should get the nomination.
And the only “lesson” Rube learned from the Gang of Eight fiasco is that voters don’t like amnesty, so it’s necessary to lie about your support for it.
You can tell a lot about a man’s character by his friends … and his enemies. Cruz scores higher than Rube on both counts.
If Rube is so damn electable, why is he running third in pretty much every poll? He can’t even get Republicans to vote for him.
Especially since I hope either Rubio or Cruz will be our nominee, and then a bunch of us who supported one of them will have to swallow our disappointment and enthusiastically support the other if we want to win in November.
On the other hand if Trump wins we can all wallow in bitterness, misery, and despair together.
If Jeb, Kasich and Carson would do the honorable thing and drop out, Rubio would crush Cruz and beat Trump.
This is my fear also. That Trump as the candidate means kissing goodbye the country as we would want it for our children.
My husband spoke with a retired military officer in South Carolina, who had attended both Cruz and Rubio rallies. He came to the same conclusion on military issues. Cruz was simplistic and arrogant, Rubio was sophisticated, knowledgeable, and humble. BTW, Cruz is still repeating that “carpet bomb ISIS” line, apparently.
Why Rubio?
Rubio is the best Republican chance of WINNING in November, and this will still be an uphill fight, having to battle the Popular Culture/MSM’s favored candidate (ie: the candidate with the (D) in front of their name).
You may win a Ricochet argument that Cruz is the more conservative, but many of us have no interest in a Silver Medal in November
Can someone give me a ‘for Dummies’ version of why the Gang of 8 was such a terrible, disgraceful thing for Rubio to do? A lot of people seem to cite that as the one thing that prevents them from ever voting for him. Is that hyperbole, or was it really that bad?
It depends on 1) your position on the various aspects of immigration policy, and 2) how important you believe immigration is as an issue.
It would have meant not only legalization but a path to citizenship. It would have increased legal immigration. And (I’m told, but haven’t researched for myself) the border security provisions were weak. If those things are anathema to you, it’s a big black mark on Rubio.
If not, I think it was still ultimately a bad bill. It was long and complicated and full of the stuff that comes with a bipartisan compromise. I would’ve voted against it. But it’s hardly Obamacare.
Rubio was right that the status quo is de facto amnesty, and right about what Obama would do given the chance. Given those facts, and given that it would really take a new president to control the border anyway no matter what the law said, if you’re OK with (or prepared to forgive) the legalization and legal immigration increases, it’s not prohibitive. If you oppose them and think they’re the #1 threat to America today, it probably is.
Brent – Excellent point and one I wish I had made. Thanks for your comments.
Let me add that in his Senate race, Rubio attacked Crist for proposing similar legislation. In fact, Rubio referred to Crist’s proposal as “code for amnesty”, over Crist’s understandable objections.
Then Rubio pushed for proposals similar to Crist’s, but called them “a path to citizenship” , not amnesty.
So during the election he pretended to be Jeff Sessions, but once in office he performed like Jeb Bush.
Maybe it’s worth it in the end. I don’t know. I’m back to considering Rubio as an option.
Yes — from what I can see Rubio changed position on at least the path to citizenship. On the face of it I’m not inclined to buy his distinctions between Gang of Eight and what Crist supported — though, in all fairness, I haven’t studied previous proposals in detail, and maybe the Gang of Eight process was more restrictive.
The most cynical explanation is that he was shamelessly opportunistic in 2010. The most charitable is that he was genuinely to Crist’s right (while exaggerating the difference) — and that while he felt Gang of Eight was justified in the moment it was not actually his preferred policy.
Alternatively (and, I think, plausibly) Romney’s 2012 defeat and the post-defeat analysis on immigration and the Hispanic vote shook him and left him convinced that as a Hispanic conservative it was his duty to get something done, even if he wasn’t enthusiastic about some of the policy. In that case 1) that reveals his weak point and 2) he likely actually means what he says on immigration now.
I’d also note that if we’re going to reject Rubio because he changed position on the issue (as opposed to objecting to his actual position) — we might as well stay home, because not a one of them has been consistent (well, maybe Kasich, haven’t checked). On this issue alone, ironically.
It’s not as though Rubio has otherwise deserved a reputation as a poll-reading flip-flopper. He has a long enough career that he must have at a minimum changed his mind a few times, but he’s been, by every account, a consistent conservative. That’s not bad for someone who’s gone through several job changes in purple-state politics.
I don’t object to Rubio because he’s changed his position on immigration. I object to him lying about changing his position. He has absolutely no moral standing to complain about any other candidate’s alleged falsehoods.
And furthermore, his supporters know he’s lying about his position on immigration. They support him because they want someone who’ll flood us with cheap immigrant labor.
So you’re a mind-reader then?
No, I look at the people who are howling the loudest for Rube. Most of them are Open Borders™ types who seem to dislike the fact that we even have borders.
You have a condescending tone that I do not appreciate. What you say is not true: people on Ricochet who support Rubio certainly do not dislike the very idea of borders, but my suspicion is that you know that.
This makes a lot of sense. Everyone was saying the GOP was dead without Hispanics. It was a mistake on Rubio’s part, and I’m fine with his acknowledgement that it was a mistake. His position on immigration now seems good to me, pretty similar to Cruz’s as far as I can tell.
Also, I think over the past decade or so it’s been tough for many conservatives to realize that it is really no longer possible to get bi-partisan stuff done with Democrats. Their plan is to steamroll their agenda through, not to compromise. I can forgive Rubio for not realizing that; after all it’s taken me some time to let it sink in.
I still don’t believe it. Our Constitutional system sets up checks and balances such that bipartisan compromise is needed to get anything meaningful done. Obama’s first 2 years where he had the House plus a fillibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate was a once-in-a-blue-moon opportunity that neither party is likely to achieve again in the foreseeable future. So the next GOP President can either
P.S. I forgot to mention option #3, which I sometimes fear is the option many Trump supporters favor:
3. establish a dictatorship and run the whole government by unconstitutional executive fiat
Except that the only mistake he acknowledges in the bill is that it was a comprehensive effort instead of sneaking it in one bill at a time. He still voted down every amendment to strengthen border security and Cruz voted for them.
Whatever, I give up, you guys can vote for Rubio and I’ll vote for the democrat to cancel out one vote.
If that’s what makes you feel better.
Yours sounds like the better attitude.