Rubio's Name Booed at Immigration Rally

I have to clear up an error -- yesterday I said this was a pro-amnesty rally, because I couldn't figure out why the hell the cops could possibly have any interest in keeping Tea Partiers out, apart from worrying that pro-amnesty lefties and anti-amnesty Tea Partiers might clash.

Well, it turns out they didn't even have that excuse. They just decided the Tea Party couldn't be present at the immigration law rally.

At the rally, Rubio's name was booed. I think a lot of the political calculation that amnesty can be had flows from the idea that Marco Rubio is out in front of the effort and he's not paying any price-- so it's safe for Corker and all the rest to get on the train.

But maybe it's not as safe as thought. I think Rubio's supporters keep expecting him to do the right thing (in their opinion) and he keeps on... not. And maybe he's starting to lose the goodwill he had built up 2010-2012.

Rubio, who has been attempting to sell the Gang of Eight bill to conservatives for months, came under fire during the rally. Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector, the co-author of a report estimating the net costs of illegal immigration and amnesty to the taxpayer, took aim at the Florida senator. “No matter what Marco Rubio says, who has not read his own bill, incidentally . . . ” was how Rector began a criticism of the immigration legislation. At one point, when Rector mentioned Rubio, the assembled tea partiers booed loudly, with at least one person shouting, “Traitor!” One sign read, “Rubio Lies, America dies.” Another read, “6.3 Trillion $, Cost of Marcos Amnesty Bill. (Net.)”

“The thing I find most offensive of all is Senator Rubio’s staff saying that we need to have more low-skilled immigrants because American workers can’t cut it,” Rector thundered, referring to comments an anonymous aide made to the The New Yorker. “I say the American dream belongs to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants first,” Rector said.

What's galling in this alleged "debate" is that the right is expected to sign up for a lot of things they oppose, and the elected representatives are expected to vote against our wishes.

And yet, on the Democratic side, whenever it is suggested that we actually increase border security, the amendment is quickly shot down, for this reason: Our base won't go for that. That's a red line for our base. If you include that, you'll lose Democrats.

I do not see the same dynamic playing out with respect to the right's demands and red-lines.

We've got a couple of demands and red-lines of our own, in case anyone bothers to ask.

But no one does bother to ask.

That's a problem, isn't it?

posted by Ace at 12:34 PM

| Access Comments