U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) holds a town hall meeting in Ankeny, IA.
U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) holds a town hall meeting in Ankeny, IA.

In 2010 Marco Rubio was the Tea Party candidate taking on the Washington establishment, much can change in six years. While I will support him should he win the Republican nomination for President one of the primary reasons I chose Ted Cruz over Rubio is because Rubio does not fight.

I’m not sure what happened to the fighter I saw in 2010, but I would love for someone to show me when Rubio has gone against Senate Republican leadership ever on anything.

The Rubio camp talks about all of the Senate endorsements he has received, for me and for a lot of conservatives, in light of what is being seen as a do-nothing Republican Senate with a horrible approval rating that is a weakness, not a strength.

Marco Rubio could not be counted on to fight against amnesty.

He said in 2010 he’ll never support amnesty. It’s obvious his position has changed.

It also appears he walked back opposition to President Obama’s executive amnesty during an interview on Univision.

Breitbart News reported that Rubio told Jorge Ramos that he wouldn’t do away with Obama’s executive amnesty for DREAMers immediately.

DACA…applies to young people that arrived in this country at a very young age before they were adults and I don’t think we can immediately revoke that… I’m not calling for it to be revoked tomorrow, or this week, or right away.

“I think it will have to end at some point and I hope it will end because of some reform to the immigration laws,” Rubio said in English. After Rubio called Ted Cruz a liar for pointing this out during the last debate, Breitbart News provided the transcript.

This may be considered qualified support for amnesty, but let’s be clear it’s amnesty that he supports.

Rubio also supported in-state tuition for illegal immigrants twice while serving in the Florida House.

The Daily Beast reports:

[B]ack in 2003 and 2004, he was even more generous to undocumented immigrants. Rubio and Rivera co-sponsored legislation that would have allowed undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition in community colleges and state universities. Those who resided in the state and attended a Florida high school for three years prior to graduation would be able to pay in-state tuition, the legislation proposed, if the student pledged to file an application to be a U.S. permanent resident as soon as he or she is able to do so.

His support of a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in 2013 through his involvement with the Gang of Eight bill is widely documented and a widely known fact. He said his support was a mistake while at CPAC last year.

Some could argue that his current plan, while not containing a pathway to citizenship, still includes a form of amnesty in the form of granting a temporary nonimmigrant visa.

Personally I’d be willing to have that discussion after the border is secure and e-verify is in place. However Rubio’s current opposition to amnesty needs to have an asterisk since he clearly supports some versions of it. When Rubio calls Cruz a liar for pointing this out he’s being disingenuous himself.

When it counted Rubio was not available to fight against amnesty in 2013, and it’s not certain he’ll fight against it in 2017 if elected President.

Marco Rubio is pro-life, but he was AWOL in the fight to defund Planned Parenthood.

I will not say that Rubio is not pro-life. I believe that he is. He, in fact, has made some of the strongest pro-life statements during the debates. I will say he was unwilling to expend political capital to defund Planned Parenthood.

The facts speak for themselves.

Rubio did not join with Ted Cruz in his push to defund Planned Parenthood as Politico noted:

Many of the Republican candidates on the debate stage Wednesday night joined in a full-throated endorsement of Ted Cruz’s damn-the-torpedoes strategy to defund Planned Parenthood, even if it means shutting down the federal government.

But two candidates who’ll soon be casting votes on the matter were noticeably silent: Sens. Marco Rubio and Rand Paul….

….When it comes to the premier congressional debate over the next two weeks, Rubio (R-Fla.) and Paul (R-Ky.) are in danger of being overshadowed by the bawdy Cruz. The Texas senator making a direct play for tea party voters is all-in: Do whatever it takes to deny Planned Parenthood its federal funding, including shuttering the government if necessary.

But the calculation for Rubio and, to a lesser extent, the fading Paul, isn’t so straightforward. Back Cruz’s play and they risk getting sullied by congressional ineptitude and looking less than presidential; oppose it and they potentially get tagged as squishy conservatives, not a good place to be four months before voting begins.

It appears politics was more important than principles in this matter.

Where was Rubio when Cruz and Mike Lee attempted to amend the “must-pass” highway bill? He was bowing to political pressure and kissed the ring of leadership.

He was AWOL on the cloture and final votes for the Continuing Resolution that the surrender caucus put together which did not include defunding language.

He was present for the show vote for the stand alone bill that stood no chance however, and it gave up any leverage they had. He can certainly point to that yes vote, but it doesn’t make him a fighter.

Rubio surrendered after the Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage.

In comparison to the other Republican candidates response after the ruling Rubio’s was weak sauce.

Rubio issued this statement after the decision, “While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law. As we look ahead, it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood.”

What “law” is Rubio talking about? A court opinion?

This statement led to the National Organization of Marriage’s President, Brian Brown, say it’s unlikely conservatives could support Rubio.

Senator Rubio is merely giving lip service when he says he supports traditional marriage, if he can’t even get behind a constitutional amendment that allows the People to decide the issue. Walker, Santorum, Jindal, Huckabee, and Perry have all made strong commitments at this critical time. Rubio and Bush, on the other hand, are simply caving. Period. Right now I can’t see conservatives supporting either.

Rubio again made it clear on Sunday he is not calling for a constitutional amendment on the issue.

Rubio may be against amnesty (debatable), for life and for traditional marriage, but his willingness to fight on these issues are very much in doubt. Rubio and his surrogates calling Cruz a liar for pointing this out shows an attempt to practice revisionist history.

5 comments
  1. Marco Rubio is a presidential material who will choose his fights wisely . Ted Cruz is a grandstander who makes speeches that will have no effect on policy but only serve to reinforce his cultivated image. I would hope that Shane would open his eyes and see this. This election is too important. With Cruz we lose, with Rubio we get a new american century.

  2. “What ‘law’ is Rubio talking about?” You might want to consider reading the U.S Constitution, particularly Article VI, clause 2 referencing the power of the United States Supreme Court and the fact that its decisions are the “Supreme LAW of the land.”

    Rubiio is the ONLY Republican candidate who can beat Bark Bark Clinton, and I support his candidacy 100%

    1. First, there is no clause 2 in Article VI of the Constitution. Secondly this is what the text actually says.

      “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

      The Supreme Court is not the object of this sentence, the Constitution, laws of the U.S. and treaties made under the authority of the U.S. are. Those are the supreme Law of the Land, not a court’s opinion. Judges are bound to it. Before you suggest I read the Constitution I’d submit you read it first or take a class in reading comprehension.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Perry’s Mormon Misstep

Friday a Rick Perry endorser, Robert Jeffress, who is the Pastor of…

New Blum Campaign Ad Focuses on Veteran Recognition

Congressman Rod Blum (R-Iowa) released a new ad entitled “Bruce Schaal,” focuses on his efforts to ensure veterans receive the recognition they deserve.

Our President: Elected or Selected?

The following is an excerpt from my book, With Christ in the…

Jake Chapman Decides Against Congressional Run, Backs Schultz

(ADEL, IA) – Iowa State Senator Jake Chapman announced today that he will…