Posted on 01/25/2012 10:25:37 AM PST by Happy Valley Dude
Sen. Marco Rubio scolded Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign over a Spanish-language radio ad that accuses rival Mitt Romney of being “anti-immigrant.”
“This kind of language is more than just unfortunate. It’s inaccurate, inflammatory, and doesn’t belong in this campaign,” Rubio told The Miami Herald when asked about the ad.
“The truth is that neither of these two men is anti-immigrant,” Rubio said. “Both are pro-legal immigration and both have positive messages that play well in the Hispanic community.”
By mid-day, Gingrich’s campaign said it would pull the radio ad out of “respect for the senator’s wishes.” About the same time, former Sen. Mel Martinez and a group of Hispanic leaders aligned with Romney in issuing a letter demanding Gingrich remove the ad.
"We respect Senator Rubio tremendously and will remove the ad from the rotation," said Gingrich's Florida campaign leader, Jose Mallea.
Earlier, Gingrich defended the ad during an interview at Univision where he attacked Romney as being too hardline and too unrealistic about immigration.
"He certainly shows no concern for the humanity of the people that are here," Gingrich said.
Rubio’s sharp rebuke comes a day after he subtly corrected Gingrich for comparing Romney to former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, branded by conservatives as a turncoat who left the party before Rubio beat him in 2010.
Both Romney and Gingrich are in Miami on Wednesday for speeches about Cuba and Latin America.
The criticisms from someone of Rubio’s stature in the Republican Party comes as polls show a near-even race, albeit with Gingrich surging.
Rubio plans to stay neutral in the race. He’s a potential running mate whom both candidates would love to have on the ballot. And he’s gaining iconic status among many national Republicans who see him as a face of the future in a nation that’s growing more Latino.
Miami, Rubio’s hometown, is a key battleground. The candidates are all wooing the Cuban-exile community here, which accounts for nearly three-quarters of the Republican vote in the largest county of the nation’s largest swing state.
Already, about 54,000 early ballots have been cast in Miami Dade, where nearly three-quarters of the Republicans are Hispanic.
Rubio’s statement was fueled by the explosive, partisan debate over immigration, a key issue this election season as both parties aggressively court the Hispanic vote.
Democrats and liberals have tried to paint the Republican candidates as anti-immigrant or even anti-Hispanic for opposing legislation such as the DREAM Act, which provides a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants — mainly college students and soldiers.
Rubio, who frets that the DREAM Act gives too much “amnesty” to a broader class of immigrants, and other Republicans have accused Democrats of playing rank ethnic politics.
So when Gingrich’s radio spot described Romney as “the most anti-immigrant candidate,” Rubio and others felt he not only crossed the line — he was adopting liberal criticisms.
Earlier in the campaign, Gingrich was accused of sounding like a Democrat when he bashed Romney’s time leading Bain Capital, a private-equity firm that, at times, had profited from restructuring companies and laying people off.
Despite the condemnation from conservatives, though, Gingrich went on to surge in South Carolina, where he drubbed Romney on Saturday.
Two days before, Gingrich began running his Spanish-language ad, which begins in shocking fashion by playing an excerpt of Fidel Castro repeating his trademark line: “Patria o muerte, venceremos!” — Fatherland or death, we shall overcome.
Romney in 2007 had mistakenly associated the Castro line with a call for a free Cuba during a speech. Some in the crowd of the Cuban-exile community were aghast.
“Unlike Romney, who uses statements from Castro, Newt Gingrich has fought against the regime,” the ad says, noting that Gingrich helped pass the Cuba-trade crackdown law, Helms-Burton.
“He supported the formation of Radio and TV Marti; and is in favor of holding the Castro brothers accountable for the shooting down of the Brothers to the Rescue airplanes,” the ad says, referencing a 1996 incident where anti-Castro activists were killed by the Cuban military near the island’s airspace.
Ironically, the ad bears some of the handiwork of Rep. David Rivera, a Rubio friend and confidante who backs Gingrich.
Rivera this fall helped stitch together a boycott of a proposed Univision debate by the Republican presidential candidates over the way the Spanish-language network reported a story about Rubio’s brother-in-law.
Rubio bears no personal ill-will to Gingrich, who helped support him when Rubio was Florida House Speaker in 2007 and 2008. Rubio and former Gov. Jeb Bush are headlining a Friday Hispanic Leadership Network event where they’ve invited all the major GOP candidates. Gingrich on Monday night began airing a new, positive Spanish-language TV ad.
The candidates Republican candidates initially balked at attending a U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce forum tied to Univision, but Gingrich and Romney have decided to attend today. Gingrich was being interviewed by Univision when word of Rubio’s criticism broke. On Tuesday on the campaign trail, Gingrich addressed large, enthusiastic crowds in St. Petersburg and Sarasota, where he invoked Rubio’s name.
"As many of you know Jose Mallea is helping us with our campaign. He was Marco Rubio’s campaign manager. We discovered last night that Mitt Romney has picked up Charlie Crist’s campaign people," Gingrich said in St. Petersburg amid a smattering of boos at the mention of the former governor’s name. "That sort of tells you everything you needed to know about this contest."
Turns out, Mallea worked for Crist years ago as well. And Romney has some high-profile Rubio workers on his staff just as Gingrich does.
Later in the day, when asked about the use of his name and the linking of Romney and Crist, Rubio didn’t sound pleased about it.
"Mitt Romney is no Charlie Crist. Romney is a conservative,” Rubio said. “And he was one of the first national Republican leaders to endorse me. He came to Florida, campaigned hard for me, and made a real difference in my race.”
I don’t know whether to shake my head in disbelief, or just be happy that, because of Newt Gingrich, positions I once flirted with that got me roundly criticized here at FR are now apparently the official site policy, and something that nobody would ever think should be different.
Oddly, as another pointed out, Romney talks about self-deporting, which is what conservatives used to talk about; that after we make it impossible for illegals to get jobs, or drive cars, or collect welfare, they will decide it’s better to go back home. Is that inhumane?
But really, the problem here was Gingrich saying that being against illegal immigrants was an “anti-immigrant” position. That’s what the left says, that if you are against illegals you are against immigrants in general. Of course Gingrich didn’t say this at an english-speaking debate, he said it on a spanish-language station advertisement. So maybe we weren’t supposed to know about it.
I’m fine w/ attrition—that comes through sealing the border and vigorously enforcing current immigration laws. Which Newt has explained he’s going to do.
But this idea that we’re going to track down and deport every single illegal immigrant, no exceptions? That’s not going to happen. It isn’t realistic.
So why should we legalize the status of those who stay?
Your points are good, and they bear repeating:
No one supporting Newt has ever said anything other than for certain reasons, he’s the best who is running. Chief among them is his ability to put liberalism in its place verbally and what he did accomplish in the 90s for conservatism.
Secure the border and address the illegals on welfare and in jail, and the problem will be in effect gone in a few years. And they all agree on the border security, even if they disagree on exactly how .
And no one, NO ONE, will ever really deport beyond that. Most Americans are against it. Not most Freepers, but most Americans. And sadly, this November, it will not be just Freepers voting .
Except that isn’t even what Gingrich said.
The proponents of amnesty are wont to create the false choice between a blanket amnesty and mass deportation of 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. In reality, we have other choices and alternatives that don’t reward people who have broken our laws with the right to stay and work here and an eventual path to citizenship. The 12 to 20 million illegal aliens did not enter this country overnight and they will not leave overnight. Attrition through enforcement works. We have empirical data from Georgia, Oklahoma, and Arizona proving that it does.
During the 2006 amnesty debate, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) commissioned a Zogby poll offering respondents not the false choice between mass deportation or amnesty (a word CIS did not use in the survey), but rather a three-way choice between mass deportation, earned legalization, and attrition — and attrition was preferred two-to-one over legalization.
***...former Sen. Mel Martinez and a group of Hispanic leaders...***
Why does this racism fly? Imagine if the article stated: “former Senator John Smith and a group of White leaders...”
Rubio, Martinez and those ‘leaders’ need some good ol’ SENSITIVITY TRAINING.
Santorum is still there, and he has as many wins as Gingrich. And he won’t call you inhumane if you want to deport illegals, or tell you that you oppose immigration if you don’t like illegals breaking our laws.
On the other hand, mine was really more a backwards-facing slap at the idiots here at FR who ran Perry out on a rail because he said Mitt Romney didn’t have a heart regarding children going to college. Those same people will ignore Gingrich saying they are inhumane. And call Santorum an extremist for wanting to ban abortion in the case of rape.
Yes, we’ll all have to support Gingrich, to stop Romney. I can accept that, but I can’t accept all the attacks on good conservatives being allowed here in pursuit of that single-minded goal. I can support Gingrich, but don’t lie about him and pretend he’s the conservative we’ve been looking for. That’s all I ask — although I certainly wish we weren’t kicking so many people off for not drinking the Gingrich Kool-Aid, I’m not asking for the site to be run any differently.
Lol. I already agreed with you on that.
Newt isn’t advocating giving college tuition aid to illegals like Perry did. Big difference, I’m afraid.
Are you trying to say that the Ad Gingrich is pulling was mischaracterized by the article? The Rubio was lying about what the ad said?
I don't speak spanish well enough to use my own judgment on this, but I generally trust Marco Rubio to tell the truth, and if he says the ad called Romney "anti-immigrant", I believe him until someone shows me the words otherwise.
Gingrich ALSO said that Romney had no concern for the humanity of illegal immigrants already in the country, but that was a separate statement, not from the ad so far as I can tell.
Rubio was born here so he is a natural born citizen. The idea that you need to be born here and that both of your parents have to be citizens is incorrect. No court has ever held this to be the case.
Second, if we go by your equation and Rubio runs, wouldn't the issue go both ways?? Obama’s parents weren't both citizens when he was born here either. So for birthers like yourself, wouldn't you want this as it would raise the eligibility question to both candidates.
Nine state legislators from the Mexican State of Sonora traveled to Tucson In January to complain about Arizona’s new employer crackdown on illegals from Mexico. It seems that many of the Mexican illegals are returning to Mexico and thats not acceptable.
Nine state legislators from the Mexican State of Sonora traveled to Tucson in January 2008 to complain about Arizona’s new employer crackdown on illegals from Mexico . It seems that many Mexican illegals are returning to their hometowns and the officials in the Sonora state government are angry about it.
The delegation of Mexican legislators from Sonora were in Tucson in January 2008 to complain that Arizona’s new Employer Sanctions Law will have a “devastating” effect on the Mexican state.
At a news conference, the legislators said that Sonora, – Arizona’s southern neighbor, – made up of mostly small towns, – cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools that it will face as Mexican workers return to their hometowns from the USA without jobs or US money.
In other words they do not want the responsibility for these people that they have expected the American taxpayer to take up. These are their own citizens and they are mad at them for coming home? One can only guess at how furious Mexican politicians are now that Arizona has passed their law requiring the enforcement of immigration laws in Arizona. But wait, What about Mexico’s immigration laws? Are they so much more lenient then ours?
Look at these current laws in Mexico Regarding immigration!
1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
2. All ballots will be in this nation’s language..
3. All government business will be conducted in our language.
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office
6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No government assistance programs will be provided for them
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
8. If foreigners come here and buy land… options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted and when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. Any and all assets will be taken from you.
I say, Let’s implement these same laws in our Country.I mean, after all, if it is good enough for Mexico to have these laws……….
I guess Mexico wants us to just do as they say not as they do!
Another thing to remember is this: none of the guys running for President now caused the illegal problem. None of them. They did not CAUSE IT. It’s been a problem of supply and demand and a porous border for like 60 years.
And they all understand that the first order of business is to SECURE THE BORDER. That’s probably about as much as can get accomplished on this issue in the first term anyway. And they all agree on that.
And it amazes me how the closer someone is to the problem: Texas, Florida, etc - the more realistic they are about deportation. The further away from the problem they are: like Minnesota or Massachusetts or Pennsylvania - the more ideological they are about deportation. Seal the border, reduce the illegals on the dole and deport them as arrested for other crimes - and we won’t even be having this discussion in three years. Certainly not in five.
I can respect that.
We shouldn’t.
You’d be hard pressed to find a more hard-liner than me.
But I’m also a realist.
Where Newt screwed up was admitting at some point we’d have to regularize some of the more entrenched Illegals.
If you agreed with me, you wouldn't put up the phony strawman about tracking down and deporting every single illegal alien. Attrition thru enforcement means you make life so miserable for illegals including cutting off the job magnet, checking on immigration status on a lawful stop by police, cutting off various benefits like welfare and food stamps, etc. that you will force people to self-deport.
I know of no polticial candidate, Dem, Rep, or otherwise who has suggested that we track down and deport every single illegal alien. It is a phony strawman used by the left that offers the false choice between a blanket amnesty or mass deportation. It is pure nonsense. That is why I repeated my response to you.
Whatever, most Americans and until very recently most freepers wanted our existing immigration laws enforced and our borders secured. Once that was done we could talk about the remaining illegals that did not self deport. But until that was done there was nothing to talk about. Personally I am sticking to that position.
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.