Nor is Rubio being ‘new and naive’ a credible explanation, given that Rubio joined the Senate in Jan of 2011 while the gang of eight legislation was crafted in the spring of 2013. So Rubio had been a Senator for more than two years… given his resume, it strains credulity to suggest that he was that ‘naive’. Plenty of people wrote, called and commented on the internet as to why the dems could not be trusted and Rubio ignored them.

He never withdrew his support, the legislation failed to garner the needed support. Only after it failed, and Rubio finally realized the critical political blunder that he had committed, did he start to spin it for damage control.

And, since Obama has never enforced the illegal immigration laws we already have and, does so with Congressional protection… what basis would there be for Rubio to assume that the proposed bill’s purported ‘stricter border provisions and more controlled amnesty’ would be honored and enforced?

Plus, when you consider that Rubio is acceptable to the GOPe, who strongly support open borders, how probable is it that he is actually opposed to amnesty?

Nor is Rubio betrayal on immigration the only issue.

Rubio has voted in support of much of Obama’s foreign policy, such as Libya and Egypt and arming “rebels” in Syria.

After Michele Bachmann and few other Congressmen called for an investigation of Muslim Brotherhood penetration into the Obama administration and government agencies, Sen. John McCain took to the Senate floor to condemn them. Sen. Marco Rubio joined McCain. Yet we all know that the Obama administration is filled with Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers and agents.

The reason people are unwilling to forget what Rubio has done is because of the cultural and demographic-electoral threat that open borders and unchecked immigration (legal and illegal) present to America. It is of singular importance because it is a mortal threat to America.

In running for the Senate, Rubio emphatically presented himself as on the right side of that issue and then joined with Congress’ most deceitful Senators (Schumer, Durbin , Flake, McCain and Graham) with a specious justification that working with Schumer was how to rein in Obama… please.

It’s not a matter of ‘forgiveness’, it’s a matter of what it reveals about the character of Marco Rubio, which is that he’s a political opportunist. One who has already betrayed fundamental American interests. That others are even worse, does not absolve him in the least.

Of course Rubio’s record matters. Why else would I be going into it? And the reason I compare it to Trump’s is that, for reasons that escape me, Trump is considered (by his supporters, that is, and I know you are not a supporter) so much more tough on immigration and so much more trustworthy than Rubio, but his record is essentially the same.

And for most people who oppose Rubio, Rubio’s immigration stance is the only reason—or certainly the main reason—they don’t like him, the one thing they have against him, and yet they cannot forgive him and that’s that. And yet there are far more things to hold against Trump (his immigration flip-flopping is something I find the LEAST objectionable of my very long list of objections), and he has the same flip-flopping record on amnesty, and yet they forgive him because he’s “evolved” and changed his mind.

Simply bizarre.

As for Rubio, I think he was somewhat naive about the Senate, where he was a new arrival. I don’t think he’s naive about it any more. I also think he was sincere in feeling they had to do something to stop Obama because of executive action, and Rubio felt the proposed bill was better than Obama because at least it contained stricter border provisions and a more controlled amnesty. He felt Obama was going to do amnesty as an executive action anyway.

This all seems quite plausible to me. Rubio has been conservative otherwise, including doing some very good stuff on Obamacare. But don’t just take my word for it—take Rush Limbaugh’s.

“Yes, I believe that as a young freshman Senator Rubio was somewhat naive.”

Rubio’s political resume since the late 1990s:
>elected City Commissioner for West Miami
>elected to the Florida House of Representatives
>Rubio promoted to be one of two majority whips
>appointed House Majority Leader
>elected Speaker of the Florida House in 2005, and served as Speaker for two years.
>elected to the United States Senate in 2010

That is not the resume of a naive newcomer to politics. In the Senate, he knew from day one how the political ‘game’ is played.

“I also believe–and this is important–that he meant what he said when he said one of the main reasons he supported the bill is that he knew that Obama was going to do stuff by executive order re immigration, and he felt this was the only way to control it and stop some of it, and that was his motivation.”

I suspect that is the rationale he told himself to justify the betrayal of his emphatic promises to the constituents who elected him. A man of principle knows when he is rationalizing something his principles forbid.

Executive orders are revocable. History proves that political compromise with the dems always means giving up much more than you get.

It’s highly likely that many republicans advised him against joining the gang of eight. He’s another McCain, Boehner and McConnell. The party had already telegraphed his future acceptability as a nominee by having him give the rebuttal to an Obama SOTU address. Political ambition then led him to disregard the warnings because he needed substantive legislation on his resume.

“As I said, you don’t have to believe it.”

Well, I don’t believe it but I’m certainly willing to be proven wrong.

“And of course, for all the others, their rhetoric on the border is ALSO just rhetoric.”

Since none are also speaking of self-deportation, removing incentives and going after employers, I can’t disagree.

“However, Rubio does not now support a path to citizenship and hasn’t since the bill fell through (it was a concession of his to the left in the bill, not his own preference).”

That’s meaningless, as he’s already demonstrated that, what he now supports and does not support… will easily change when political calculation dictates otherwise.

“You may believe he does support it in his heart of hearts, but it is not his stated position.”

Only he knows what is in his heart. But given his track record*, his “stated position” is meaningless.

*Again, why does Trump’s track record matter but not Rubio’s? Might your understandable desperation to see someone beat the dem nominee be leading you to ignore in Rubio what you find unacceptable in Trump?

In my mind, it was the GOP establishment that passed the Omnibus bill. It was a complete capitulation to Obama and a betrayal of conservative voters.

Rubio didn’t bother to vote on Omnibus.

Cruz voted against it,

Trump had harsh words for it.

The Omnibus bill represents everything that is wrong with the GOP establishment. It also explains why candidates perceived as outsiders, esp. Cruz and Trump, have the most traction. So, I think positioning candidates based on their Omnibus vote/record is a reasonable measure.

WRT Trump on immigration. The video is from 2013 and Trump was spouting conventional wisdom. Since then, his position has evolved. The explicit disavowal is the detailed Position paper on his campaign website. I understand he was influenced by Ann Coulter’s book “Adios America” and he consulted with Jeff Sessions before announcing his policy. Who counts as “good”? In his immigration policy position, Trump writes:

End welfare abuse. Applicants for entry to the United States should be required to certify that they can pay for their own housing, healthcare and other needs before coming to the U.S.

So, the “good” deportees who want to return legally would have to pass that barrier. Can we trust Trump on his new position? Who knows? It’s a crap-shoot. But I don’t trust anyone else, and I especially don’t trust Rubio.

Maybe Cruz can be trusted. Like Trump, he has some baggage on Immigration policy that he needs to shed. He recently called for a huge increase in H-1B visas, and he has evolved on the legalization issue. Cruz has more detail than Trump on his immigration plans on his web-site. There is quite a lot of overlap. Like Trump, he would end birthright citizenship. If his policies were implemented, a lot of illegals would be deported or forced to return home.

If illegal immigration is your primary issue, then it comes down to trust. The choices aren’t good because that evil GOP establishment has no interest in securing the border, as proven by the Omnibus bill. Candidates aligned with the GOP establishment won’t do anything effective about illegal immigration. In the end, we are left with just two options: Mr. Clown Car or Mr. Slick Lawyer.

Yes, I believe that as a young freshman senator Rubio was somewhat naive.

I also believe—and this is important—that he meant what he said when he said one of the main reasons he supported the bill is that he knew that Obama was going to do stuff by executive order re immigration, and he felt this was the only way to control it and stop some of it, and that was his motivation.

As I said, you don’t have to believe it. And of course, for all the others, their rhetoric on the border is ALSO just rhetoric. However, Rubio does not now support a path to citizenship and hasn’t since the bill fell through (it was a concession of his to the left in the bill, not his own preference). You may believe he does support it in his heart of hearts, but it is not his stated position.

And of course it’s Trump’s stated position–or at least it was in 2013, and I don’t think he’s ever disavowed it.

??? Please explain your ‘logic’.

“ever since the Gang of 8 bill fell, his rhetoric for controlled borders has been strong (actually, it even was then; his error there was believing that the bill would accomplish it). The bill supported a path to citizenship, supposedly after the borders were secure.”

Surely we can agree that Rubio is not stupid nor politically naive?

NO Republican ever supposed the democrats to be sincere on controlling the borders. They all, including Rubio know (and knew) that the democrats are/were insincere and would never vote for legislation that did not ensure that the legislation’s verbiage contained a loophole so that the border could remain open.

Given that certainty, it’s ludicrous to assert that Rubio ever actually believed that the bill would enable the borders to be controlled.

As for Rubio’s rhetoric, it is exactly that, rhetoric. He’s already proven that rhetoric holds no loyalty to him. His promises to the Tea Party to NEVER support amnesty proves that beyond dispute. And proved him to be a political opportunist. So, since it blew up in his face, naturally he’s backpedaling as fast and hard as he can.

“Since then he has said he is against deportation.”

Red flag. Any politician actually serious about illegal immigration would be touting self-deportation. No jobs and no benefits = no illegals. They’re here for the money and benefits, cut that off and they leave. Go hard after the employers and the issue quickly dissipates.

“And he supports SOME illegal immigrants being able to get a green card.”

That is an admission of defeat, lawbreakers cannot be rewarded or you encourage law breaking.

“You may think he secretly still supports a path to citizenship, but it is not his platform. So don’t state it as a given; it is not.”

Neither leopards nor political opportunists change their spots. Hold Rubio to the same standard of circumstantial evidence that you do Trump.

I in no way support Trump, so when it comes to his flaws, you’re preaching to the choir.