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
Sure there is.
I am not upset that they are delaying hearings on a SCOTUS nominee, but to give them credit as though they are making some courageous stand is absurd.
If they are so courageous taking a stand within their Constitutional powers on this where was the courage during appropriations?
My key issue is money because private property secures our liberty. Until they are ready to take that stand they will get no credit as some great warriors.
What heat are they taking for this stand?
I’ve written Cruz, Cornyn, and even P. Sessions as much as that pains me and thanked them for many votes. It is one reason I believe I have direct access to some of their staff members.
Doing what is well within their Constitutional powers isn’t going to get a thank you note. At some point we can stop congratulating them for doing their job.
Interesting. Did you have any particular poll in mind?
Regardless, I’m not sure it would really show; this damage to Rubio happened before the primaries and may well have carried over in non-explicit ways. That is, if people were disappointed by Rubio because of Go8, that might not show at an exit poll.
All this talk that the Go8 wasn’t a complete deal killer so he must have lost for some other reason, is setting up the Go8 as a strawman. That wasn’t the issue, it was not a deal killer for Rubio, it just made him consistently my 2nd or 3rd pick, not my first, and it seems to have done that for a lot of people. I would love to be able to vote for him for President, but this cycle that won’t happen. Absent the Go8 he would have gotten a harder look for #1 by me and a lot more. But originally I was Walker, Cruz, Rubio, then after Walker dropped out it was Cruz, Rubio.
As others have said he seemed to run a campaign to be everyone’s #2 and was extremely successful at that. You have to run to be #1 to be #1, he didn’t.
No way that does not require them to grow a backbone, at least.
With a couple of exceptions (Mississippi and Alabama, I believe) state exit polls have consistently shown that 1) Republicans support legalization (55% in FL) and 2) that immigration is actually a low priority. I don’t have links — could hunt them up.
You can argue the polls don’t give all the options, but the results obviously show Republicans are at least open to legalization.
Here’s why I think Rubio missed an opportunity: I spent some time personally wrestling with this whole issue this cycle (in all honesty, I’d been avoiding forming a firm opinion for years). With Walker, Perry, and Jindal out, I had to make a final evaluation of Marco Rubio, and I couldn’t duck it any further.
My ultimate conclusion was — though Gang of Eight was not good legislation (I’ve now read parts of it) that I have to support some form of legalization. I realize that makes me a RINO and a amnesty shill and all of that –so be it.
(cont.)
So I found myself in opposition to Cruz’s and Trump’s current position. In that situation, I prefer the guy who agrees with me now, even if I don’t quite trust him, over the ones I disagree with now whom I also don’t quite trust.
But I reached that point all on my own. Rubio didn’t make that case to me.
His response to Cruz was to point out that Cruz’s own record was inconsistent. Which was accurate, but also seemed to yield the main point: the message was “I’m flawed, but so is he.” Just seems — given the polls showing at a minimum openness to legalization — that he’d have been well served by making an actual moral case for limited legalization and arguing not only that Cruz had been inconsistent but that he was now wrong.
Water under the bridge; it’s a nice theoretical discussion. Rubio’s out. Sometime in the next few years, when Hillary Clinton’s full amnesty is in full swing and as she convincingly sells the line to the people she’s brought in that Republicans hate them — it’ll be interesting to ask the people who worked to sink Marco Rubio over Gang of Eight whether they really think we’d have been worse off with an eloquent Hispanic conservative welcoming those people into the country and seeking to win them over.
Just saying.
I do think it hurt him, for what it’s worth. But the trajectory of the race indicates it wasn’t the deal-killer. Right to Rise, the debate stumble in NH, and getting out-organized by Cruz did that.
Wrong. It’s about immigration, no matter how hard some try to minimize or ignore the issue. Message? Don’t sleep with Schumer.
Just because it is about immigration for you doesn’t mean this applies to the broader electorate.
Sure, you’re right about my perspective. But, check the numbers. The only two candidates remaining both oppose illegal immigration, vehemently.
Check them both again. Ted Cruz’s immigration legacy isn’t so cut and dry and The Donald has flip flopped on various elements of his own policy multiple times, sometimes within 24 hours.
That’s an unfounded, sweeping statement. Flat-out ignorant. At the minimum burden, it requires proving a negative.
There exist many ways for elected Republicans to please conservative voters. It may be true in the end that *these* clowns cannot please conservatives, but that’s hardly a knock on us.
Agreed, Leigh. I thought that Rubio either needed to openly admit a mistake, not just on gang of 8 but on the position itself, or to use his famed charm and rhetorical skill to make his case without resorting to the “round em up” mockery which just closes hearts and minds. A uniter, not a divider. But if he saw that this was a problem his fatal mistake was in thinking that he could dance around it; that was satisfying to no one and scuffed his image exactly where he was trying to burnish it.
I think we’re seeing that it does apply to the broader electorate.
Not according to exit polling. Trumps support seems to be somewhere between 30-40% of republican voters – hardly a majority.
I think much of Rubio’s problem was that few people, including many of his supporters, believed he truly meant to secure the borders. There is, unfortunately, a significant portion of the GOP donor class willing to sell America to the cheapest workers.