Hugh Hewitt makes ten points relevant to the Senate “Gang of 8” Immigration bill, which he terms a fiasco and rightly opposed by the Republicans who did vote against it. Read the entire article here.
Given all the deficiencies he points out about the bill, all of which are compelling, we find it too politically “transcendental” to also maintain as he does that Marco Rubio’s aggressive role in the creation of the Senate’s immigration bill won’t hurt his standing with Republicans if he decides to run for president in 2016. Here is the Hewitt analysis we find inconsistent with our own ear to the ground. It would be very disconcerting if true.
6. Senator Marco Rubio remains a GOP superstar who will be in much demand in 2014 and a very serious contender for the GOP presidential nomination if he chooses to be. And his candidacy will be greatly enhanced by this. He has marked out his reformist credentials on a key issue and can go as conservative as he wants to on every other issue. Thanks to his immigration efforts, the media won’t be able to paint him as an extremist as it is trying to do with Ted Cruz right now. The immunization process is painful, but Rubio’s a pretty tough character. In addition, the noise from the extreme wing of the anti-immigration reform movement is wildly amplified by the media. Here’s a test: Ask any elected official you know if they’d like to have Senator Rubio headline a fundraiser for them next month. They will all say “Yes!” Almost everybody in the GOP still loves Rubio, but many disagree with him on this key issue. Big deal. Recall that W had the same issue with things like ports and immigration reform but never lost the GOP base.
Hewitt’s statement “Almost everybody in the GOP still loves Rubio” is something to which we would say . . . huh?
If we “loved” him before it was because he was articulate in support of the platform, particularly on immigration. He was the Tea Party candidate. And, because he was a first generation Latino, he had the “authority” to be shielded from charges of racism. So he parlayed that to celebrity advantage, and for awhile, as a face for conservative Republican efforts at border security and enforcement of immigration laws.
But maybe the problem we have here with Hewett’s view is, what’s the definition of ‘Republican'”? At least to this publication Marco Rubio has demonstrated that he shares one of the worst characteristics of our current president: tell’em whatever they want to hear until they’ve voted for you. (Charlie Crist must be wringing his hands over his inability to conceal his true self as skillfully as Rubio did in 2010.).
Tea Party Republicans brought him to the dance, electing him to the Senate. And then he betrayed us on those very important timely concerns. So if we were starry eyed before, now we have been jilted, and our vision cleared. Legal Insurrection provides one expose of Rubio’s seductive words.
In this October 2009 interview, uncovered by Morgen Richmond (formerly of Verum Serum), Rubio takes a particularly hard line, insisting that “you cannot grant amnesty,” and going on to explain how amnesty undermines the entire immigration system going forward.
The interview is pretty devastating to Rubio’s role in the Gang of 8 immigration bill which puts legalization and a path to citizenship ahead of enforcement of current laws and securing both the borders and the visa system
While respecting Hewitt we think that the Rubio boat will hopefully now have trouble holding water. We say hopefully because if he remains a relative contender for long, we fear it will be because conservative Tea Party caucus and primary voters will have left the Republican Party. Achieving the nomination in a multi-candidate field, where the vote for the others who did not support the Gang of 8 bill are split, is not a confident path to general election victory when the operating demeanor of a large part of the current Republican base is disgust with business as usual Washington Republicans now epitomized by Rubio.
There is visceral opinion about this that establishment Republicans just don’t get. They are held in disdain for having no backbone for conservative issues. But it is worse than that for Rubio. He was part of preventing amendments, which had he supported them, would have lent credence to his pledge to support border control before regularization amnesty. A candidate perceived as carrying the water for Democrats, particularly on something seen as a Democrat recruitment bill, will be vilified.
Hugh, base grass roots support for Rubio has been seriously damaged, probably irretrievably given the availability of solid alternative candidates. If he enjoys wide support in a Republican Party, it will probably be from a smaller party. DLH and R Mall
Pertinent quotes
Daniel Greenfield at Front Page Mag June 3, 2013
some conservatives obsessed with winning the votes of Mexican immigrants by relaxing immigration rules and then hoping that somehow the resulting electoral landscape will be compatible with fiscal conservatism.
Robert Rector writing at Heritage, June 2007
A decade ago, Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman admonished the Wall Street Journal for its idée fixe on open-border immigration policy. “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state,” he warned. This remark adds insight to the current debate over immigration in the U.S. Senate . . . Ed note: 2007 AND 2013
Elections in modern societies are, to a considerable degree, referenda on the magnitude of future income redistribution. An immigration policy which grants citizenship to vast numbers of low-skill, low-income immigrants not only creates new beneficiaries for government transfers, but new voters likely to support even greater transfers in the future.
The grant of citizenship is a transfer of political power. Access to the U.S. ballot box also provides access to the American taxpayer’s bank account. This is particularly problematic with regard to low-skill immigrants. Within an active redistributionist state, as Friedman understood, unlimited immigration can threaten limited government.
Oh boy here comes another Rubio pander!
“At the behest of antiabortion groups, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is considering becoming a lead sponsor of legislation that would ban abortions 20 weeks after fertilization”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/07/cnn-airs-zimmermans-ssn-phone-number-167452.html