Posted on 04/15/2015 8:41:22 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A follow-up to yesterday’s mini-bombshell from Byron York about what Rubio said in 2013. Skip to 3:15 below. To be fair, he never told York categorically that he’d let Obama’s order stand if elected president. What he said was, “I cannot imagine a scenario where a future president is going to take away the status they’re going to get.” If you want to pretend that that’s meaningfully distinct from what Rubio would do as president himself, have at it. The best spin that can be put on this, I think, is that Rubio lied to York at the time because he wanted to put pressure on righties to support the Gang of Eight bill. In other words, he didn’t sincerely believe that O’s order would be irreversible by a GOP successor but he wanted conservatives to believe it so that they’d panic and decide to accept half a loaf on immigration in the form of the Senate immigration bill. That wouldn’t be the first time Rubio used Obama in a sort of good cop/bad cop routine to get amnesty passed. If it makes you feel better to think that he was lying to righties two years ago to try to scare them into supporting comprehensive immigration reform rather than lying to them now about what he’ll do as president, again, have at it.
Here’s a more useful question than babbling about what Rubio really meant: How would a new Republican president, under tremendous pressure from the right to cancel O’s amnesty order and tremendous pressure from center-righties, Democrats, and Latinos to keep it intact, split the baby? The obvious solution, a la ObamaCare, is not merely to repeal but repeal and replace. Odds are very good that whoever ends up as GOP nominee, Ted Cruz included, will roll out an immigration plan early in the general election campaign that demands much stronger enforcement but also contemplates some form of legalization for illegals, including and especially those illegals who’ve already been covered by Obama’s most recent executive order. (The plan probably won’t allow a path to citizenship in the interest of keeping conservatives happy, but that’s a detail. Once legalization happens, citizenship will follow down the road inevitably.) That would allow the nominee to promise, truthfully, that ending Obama’s amnesty is a priority for him when he takes office while also placating amnesty fans by giving them a statutory route to keeping the basics of O’s plan in place. Righties will grumble, but if there’s ever a moment when they’d be willing to forgive some heresy on immigration, it’s as a pander to swing voters in the thick of a presidential race where Hillary Clinton stands to benefit if they revolt. That’s what Rubio’s counting on. I’d say it’s a smart bet.
Exit question: Is Jeb Bush really the Bush-iest candidate in the GOP field? The whole reason for Rubio’s candidacy, at least from the donor class’s perspective, is that he offers a Jeb-like policy program without any of the “Bush baggage” that’ll hurt Jeb in the general election. On the merits, though, there’s no one in the race, Jeb included, who’s more like Dubya than Rubio is. He backed comprehensive immigration reform, just as Bush 43 did; he’s the most loud-and-proud neoconservative in the field, a fact alluded to in his campaign slogan; and his boldest domestic initiative, his family-friendly tax reform plan, is a throwback to “compassionate conservatism.” Rubio said of Dubya in 2012, “George W. Bush, in my opinion, did a fantastic job as president over eight years,” a line you may see featured once or twice in Democratic (and Rand Paul) attack ads over the next year. I keep imagining a debate between Rubio and Hillary where he echoes the “yesterday is over” theme from his campaign launch by warning voters that they shouldn’t want to return to the White House of twenty years ago — whereupon Hillary retorts that they really shouldn’t want to return to the White House of ten years ago. “A return to Bush” will be the main Democratic line of attack on Republican nominees for years to come, but in Rubio’s case, as new conservative wine in old Republican bottles, it really might have some bite.
I don’t trust any of these ‘repooplicans’, especially the ones who campaigned as budget busting candidates last fall and then shoved a huge tax increase up all of our a$$es with this new budget that passed the Senate. Screw the whole lot of these two-face ba$tard$.
Rubio is playing us for fools just like the rest of them.
“You have potential ! You have potential ! You have po — oh, boy.”
There was no other explanation for the claims he was making.
If you choose to believe he "made a mistake" and has seen the light, fine. I never will be convinced of that.
Rubio even said in 2013 that he didn’t see how a President would be able to reverse Obama on an Amnesty Executive Order. This guy is about as disingenuous as they come.
” Maybe Marco is using Mitten’s Etch-a-Sketch board!”
More like Etch-A Wretch : )
Well Marky is sure wearing Willard’s old flip flops...
...and, maybe the magic undies, as well!
Really? After the previous amnesty fights, low favorable polling for amnesty, the fact it was a huge issue when he got elected, and he campaigned against amnesty, he made a mistake? If he is that dense, he doesn’t belong anywhere near politics.
The mistake excuse could easily be used for a touchy issue that came up during his term. Amnesty has been an issue for years, and there are very few thinking people that don’t have an opinion on it. His mistake was thinking he had the influence to sway enough conservatives to get the bill passed.
Rubio is so transparently FOS as to be laughable....except the subject matter isn’t the least bit funny.
Let’s put it this way... I have YET to see one candidate (other that Tom Tancredo and Pat Buchanan, who aren’t running ) whose immigration stance is absolutely AGAINST ANY FORM of eventual amnesty.
Even FReepers have doubts about Ted Cruz’s and Scott Walker’s stance on this issue.
Heck, even the great constitutional lawyer, talk show host, Mark Levin doesn’t rule out some form of eventual amnesty for those illegals born and living here as children. His argument is — FIRST, SECURE THE BORDERS — then when we are full satisfied that it is secure, we can talk about what to do with those who have grown up here. Isn’t that some form of veiled eventual amnesty for illegals?
So, if it’s perfection one wants, then one will stay home and let Hillary have the field.
For me, if it comes down to Hillary vs Rubio, I will not hesitate to pull the lever for the latter.
My calendar might be off, but in 2013, Rubio was clearly of that opinion, exactly as accused. That is what got him in trouble— for letting illegals stay, with the exception of the usual round up for deportation of the criminals, etc.
Since he said that, however, it has reached critical mass and is so much worse than just looking at youngsters who were brought here by their parents in the sixties, who were raised and educated here and in some cases, grew up with those who are now governors and senators today. Deporting them was never going to fly.
But, now it is total collapse at the border. The laws will have to determine a retro active cut-off date and move thousands out of here over time. A Republican who says this, however, will NEVER get elected.
k
Let’s put it this way... I have YET to see one candidate (other that Tom Tancredo and Pat Buchanan, who aren’t running ) whose immigration stance is absolutely AGAINST ANY FORM of eventual amnesty.
Even FReepers have doubts about Ted Cruz’s and Scott Walker’s stance on this issue.
Heck, even the great constitutional lawyer, talk show host, Mark Levin doesn’t rule out some form of eventual amnesty for those illegals born and living here as children. His argument is — FIRST, SECURE THE BORDERS — then when we are full satisfied that it is secure, we can talk about what to do with those who have grown up here. Isn’t that some form of veiled eventual amnesty for illegals?
So, if it’s perfection one wants, then one will stay home and let Hillary have the field.
For me, if it comes down to Hillary vs Rubio, I will not hesitate to pull the lever for the latter.
How about the respect enough to be honest with us?
Someone who lies to me will never have my vote.
I saw his Tuesday interview with MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt and it sounds like he is saying her would push to pass a similar amnesty bill to replace Obama’s order.
KASIE HUNT: Okay. I also wanna ask you about immigration. Would you reverse the President’s executive order that allows some young people to stay here in this country?
MARCO RUBIO: We’ll, that’ll eventually– I– I– I wouldn’t say that we would immediately reverse that one. I’ve always distinguished that one from the first one, but I’ve always said that eventually that will not be the permanent policy of the United States. It will have to come to an end at some point, and I hope it comes to an end because we’ve reformed our immigration laws.
We’ve en– we’ve– improved the way we– enforce our immigration laws so that future illegal immigration is under control and third, we’ve been able to accommodate those people that have been in this country for a long period of time, especially the young people. So at some point DACA is gonna have to end. There’s no doubt about it. The one he took–
KASIE HUNT: But you wouldn’t repeal it right away.
MARCO RUBIO: No, I’ve said that before, abso– I mean, I wouldn’t– and the reason why is it would be very disruptive. You now have people that are working. They’re in school. They’re employees. And suddenly overnight they’d be– illegally in the country. But ultimately there will come a point where it will have to end, maybe not in six months but at some point it will have to end.
And that’s why there should be urgency about moving forward on immigration reform, beginning with immigration enforcement. If we can prove to the American people that future illegal immigration is under control, I believe we can move quickly thereafter to modernize our legal immigration system and then deal with the fact that we have 12 million people in this country who have been here for longer than a decade who are here illegally.
Rubio: ‘No doubt’ I’m more experienced than Obama was in ‘08(Kasie Hunt, 04/14/15 MSNBC com )
” RE :”Marco Rubio reverses: As president, I’d end Obama’s executive amnesty for illegals
.......
but as senator he pushed for AMNESTY..”
I saw his Tuesday interview with MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt and it sounds like he is saying her would push to pass a similar amnesty bill to replace Obama’s order.”
Marco Rubio
HISPANIC VOTE SLUT
IOW, never. This is a ruse and a Lie. Rubio isn't fooling Conservatives.
Rubio, you lying Hack! Go fluff Obama, pansy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.