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.
Why Didn’t Sessions Endorse Cruz?
In recent threads, members have speculated as to why Sen. Jeff Sessions endorsed Donald Trump instead of Sen. Ted Cruz. On the Corner, Mark Krikorian offers his take:
This is purely speculation, but I think what probably made up [Sessions’s] mind to endorse — and to endorse Trump instead of Cruz — was the imperative to stop Rubio. For some reason, the conventional wisdom has gelled that Cruz can’t stop Trump, whereas Rubio can. I think that’s nuts — unlike Rubio, Cruz is likely to actually win his home state. (I’ll be voting for him tomorrow in Virginia.)
He continues:
In any case, Rubio is clearly the establishment choice to be the anti-Trump. And a President Rubio combined with a Speaker Ryan is a nightmare scenario for immigration; many people see it as essentially guaranteeing a Chamber of Commerce–approved amnesty/immigration-surge bill, different from the Gang of Eight only in not letting the amnesty recipients vote.
[…]
I’m confident that we would succeed — yet again — in stopping a Rubio-Ryan amnesty push in 2017; Sessions apparently is not, and sees Trump as the only way to nip it in the bud. Since he’s the one who’s actually waged and won these fights in Congress, we can’t dismiss his assessment.
Your thoughts?
Published in Domestic Policy, Immigration
What is more existential threat to America…illegal immigrants or 19 trillion dollars in debt with untold trillions in unfunded liabilities? I agree with many of the enforce the border/anti illegal immigration sentiment. Rubio will not go there again, and the GOPe will not as well…they simply cannot. But immigration is not and will not be the destruction of America…it will be the extra 50,000 dollars our children owe and will continue to owe after we don’t deal with the problem. It is dispiriting to see all the work in the past 7 years to reshape the GOP into a smaller government party – see Sasse, Toomey, Cruz, Gardner, etc, etc throw it all away.
Word.
It’s my opinion that the pro-Paul Ryan/anti-Paul Ryan split is really the biggest split between conservatives. I really liked Paul Ryan four years ago, but my opinion has changed dramatically.
I had to quit listening to Hugh Hewitt for awhile after Boehner resigned. First he went nuts promoting Kevin McCarthy. Then he went 10-times nuts promoting Paul Ryan. I’ve never heard him be so upset. He thought Paul Ryan was the savior of everything. That doesn’t make a lot of sense for a guy who is one of the most friendly interviewers towards Ted Cruz, but Hewitt really seems to dislike all discussions about immigration except support for a magic fence which will solve everything.
I think the real split occurred in 1994 when 58.93% of Californians voted for Proposition 187 which prohibited illegal aliens from using non-emergency health care, public education, and similar services. Paul Ryan is from the Empower America organization, and its founders Jack Kemp and Bill Bennett fought against this conservative measure which passed liberal California by almost 60% of the vote.
NAFTA was supposed to slow down illegal immigration, not increase it. Maybe one of the biggest splits is that some conservatives like borders while the ones in the northern gated-communities only like borders around their own individual property lines.
Anti-Proposition 187? What’s the difference between forcing taxpayers to support illegal immigrants and legalized theft? The party was never the same after this.
The importation of tens of millions of low-income workers into a welfare system drains that system. They will have a claim to all our programs, burdening them and breaking them more quickly. Education, food / housing subsidies, healthcare, tax credits, etc. And the workers they displace? Formerly self-supporting citizen will then need ‘assistance’. Cheap labor is expensive for taxpayers.
If it had been well managed, immigration would have provided a great benefit to our country, but our business class wanted a flood of low income workers, and that’s what they got.
What will Rubio have ‘learned’ if you elect him president? He wants this – most of them do – and a Ryan/Rubio alliance will push it through.
The powerful GOP leadership has fought his effort at every turn.
All the well reasoned arguments and “anti-establishment” lines in the sand to vehemently oppose Marco Rubio under the belief that he will usher in some sort of amnesty for illegal immigrants ultimately results in a very principled funeral procession for the Republicans in this 2016 Election Year.
Donald Trump is not a serious human being, when pressed it is obvious Trump barely has an even cursory knowledge of the issues he purports to champion.
I have written here in Ricochet before, but I will repeat myself, I sincerely fear that the Democrats(with the aid of the silent MSM on disqualifying/scandalous Trump issues) have managed to Axelrod the Republicans into supporting such an awful candidate that even the truly despicable Hillary Clinton will crush Donald Trump in the November general election.
You may dislike Marco Rubio with a passion but he has one huge upside and that is an honest to God chance for a Republican win in the November general election.
And notwithstanding the fears expressed in preceding comments, Rubio is the only candidate to have undergone “aversion therapy” on the amnesty question.
I am surprised that no one has welcomed Mark K. For participating in this thread!
A man who cannot even win his own state?
I don’t oppose amnesty because I’m mad that laws aren’t enforced or because I don’t like immigrants. I oppose it because we’re legalizing millions (probably closer to 20+ than 11) of low income people, net users of tax money, people with no understanding of or affection for our system of government, with no real efforts to stop the flow – rather continuing the incentives for these people to come illegally, and THIS will damage our country as surely as Trump will. Our freedom and prosperity, our system of government, are not indestructible.
I was very surprised by Sen. Sessions endorsement. I think it is short sighted. As many have said Trump is fundamentally untrustworthy, plus this move only makes it more likely that Cruz drops out after today giving Rubio a better chance at the nomination.
If a man cannot be faithful to his wife, who he takes a vow under God to, how can you expect him to be faithful to a campaign promise?
Illegal immigration is not a net good to our country but the looming entitlement disaster is not due to illegal immigration…that is our existential threat. Trump or Clinton will continue to ignore and then….prepare for the VAT tax or the 401k tax.
We voted for McCain who abandoned his disabled wife for a younger, prettier, rich girl. I just don’t think this argument will sway anyone.
Trump has many weak spots – pick a few that really impact his voters in a material way. Concentrate on how Trump will likely hurt them financially.
By electing this man president, you teach him and every other elected politician, that they can survive (thrive even!), defying their voters and reneging on campaign promises.
I’ll agree, and also throw in the SCOTUS vacancy and coming vacancies. If Clinton fills them, it’s game over for the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Trump, probably the same. I’d rather gamble on immigration with Rubio versus gambling on everything else with Trump. I don’t think Cruz is electable, but I’ll fight hard for him if he gets the nomination.
No, these guys were never wanted, even before any votes were cast. Winning might have been a consolation to us for having to deal with these guys, but we didn’t even get that.
The party is fractured, but winning is a powerful salve. Losing while feeling ignored is intolerable.
Very interesting. But, as someone with family roots in northern flyover country, I’d just like to point out that there’s no escaping/denying the effects of illegal immigration over the southern border. Even the gated community dwellers know who their landscapers are.
I also thinks this points to the bigger problem. What, precisely, are the solutions? How do we feel about a national ID, for example? We’ve got big problems right here in River City, folks. None of these candidates will save us.
Pretty well sums up my position.
Please, folks, stop being distracted by the “squirrel” of illegal aliens. The real battle is over legal immigration, which must be severely curtailed or ended now.
You cannot clean up the spill until you turn off the faucet – especially when the one million plus annual spill votes 4 to 1 for the party of more water – more immigration, more government, more regulation, more taxes, more socialism.
“Today, America needs fewer immigrants.”
These Five Magic Words are what we want to hear if we’re serious about all of our other issues.
If you permit the other side a steady stream of reinforcements, Ricochetti, how do you expect to prevail?
(Please answer that question. It is not rhetorical.)
It could also be that business guys do what they have to do, but at least some of them would really rather not have to do it and would change things if they could. Hate the game, not the player. Otherwise, I’m not sure that anybody really trusts Trump as much as they distrust others.
The Democrats have known even before Marco Rubio declared that the biggest threat to Hillary in the November general was from Marco Rubio. Great sums of money and PR efforts have been expended to make people dislike Marco Rubio.
Those who have toiled in this Axelrodian effort to “dirty up” Hillary’s biggest threat should be proud that they have succeeded beyond their wildest expectations, especially in conservative blogs.
By “teaching lessons” you give the Presidency to Hillary Clinton.
Republicans can’t win for winning because of the Axelrod-Alinsky axis.
Trump tells people what they want to hear (build a wall, stop importing people and cheap Chinese products) and garners enough support to be the Republican front runner. But he comes off as a caricature of Republicanism as portrayed by the Left. And next to nothing he proposes will ever be accomplished anyway.
Rubio won’t tell people what they want to hear and he’s “untrustworthy.”
Last person out, turn off the lights.
Rubio told people what they wanted to hear, then showed he was untrustworthy.
Respectfully, I think that is a very bad gamble. If we get this wrong Rubio could be the last right leaning President we elect.
As Thomas Sowell would say, “There are no solutions only trade-offs.”
“None of these candidates will save us.” However, hopelessness is nothing. What is the “good” trade-off that hopelessness brings?
Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and the Republican establishment would rather lose every election than enforce the border and send the criminals home — and they aren’t even the ones doing the dangerous work on the front lines. Like Helen Lovejoy, all the rich Republican establishment can do is cry, “Won’t somebody please think of the children?!”
You mean Bush right?
Jeff Sessions is a coward and believes that supporting Trump is his best path to re-election. Only a coward could endorse Donald Trump. #NeverTrump
And I will, if I ever meet him, tell him the same thing to his face. What a despicable thing to do, especially given the oath he took. Unbelievable.
I disagree with Jeff Sessions’ decision to endorse Donald Trump, and I am disappointed in him.
He is not a coward, and your desire to tell him so to his face should embarrass you, rather than give you a sense of pride.
His desire to save his political skin by endorsing a person who praises Communist China and opposes the bill of rights should embarras him, rathern than give him a sense of pride. No one has yet to defend the endorsement, just to say that I am overblown in my criticism. If people like Jeff Sessions destroy the conservative movement for a generation to come by providing Donald Trump political cover for his atrocious statements about the liberty I love, the least I can do is call such people cowards.
You are aware these people swear an oath to the US Constitution? Can you reconcile this oath with Sessions’ position on Trump, given Trump’s positions, on the record, during the 2016 campaign, opposed to free speech, free religion, free press, and private property rights?