In case you missed it over the weekend, I published two posts yesterday showing that Marco Rubio has said different things about amnesty in English and in Spanish.
In Part One, I showed that Rubio has promised in English that there would be border security before anything happens on legalization, while in Spanish he told Univision that legalization happens first, and border security second.
In Part Two, I showed that Rubio has suggested in English that he would eliminate all of Obama’s illegal amnesty measures on day one, while in Spanish he assured Univision watchers that DACA — the amnesty geared towards dreamers — could not be ended on day one of his administration, and hopefully would last until comprehensive reform could be enacted that would allow them all to stay here permanently.
Some people are asking why I am taking on Rubio. I agree that Donald Trump is the bigger problem, and I am working on something that hopefully would advance the ball on him. But I also agree with Ted Cruz that if we elect a candidate who is pro-amnesty, as Rubio patently is, we are likely to lose in November. More to the point, even if we win, we will get amnesty, including eventual citizenship — and anyone who is honest will admit that Rubio wants this. And that will cause many long-term problems — not the least of which is the creation of a pool of millions of new Democrat voters. If Rubio is elected, we will cement a Democrat majority for decades to come.
We need Ted Cruz. But he is getting hurt by the false perception that his campaign is dishonest. It’s a perception being driven by both Marco Rubio and Donald Trump (and Ben Carson), for their own personal reasons. There are, to be sure, self-inflicted wounds in this process: a Photoshop of Rubio and Obama when genuine pictures would serve the same purpose; or yesterday’s incident where Cruz’s campaign manager pushed a video that supposedly showed Rubio insulting the Bible, which is a preposterous enough notion that it should have raised some red flags. But most of the perception of dishonesty is itself driven by dishonest attacks on “lies” by Cruz that turn out not to be lies. Cruz needs honest folks to have his back on these issues. And Rubio is out there pushing this stuff hard, and in a dishonest manner. So Rubio is going to get some pushback.
If you like Rubio and don’t mind him lying about Ted Cruz, and get upset when people like me defend him, then skip the posts.
Here’s the programming notes for the week. One of the biggest cheerleaders for Marco Rubio on Twitter is a fellow who calls himself “AG Conservative.” He has penned a piece he titles 6 Blatant Ted Cruz Lies about Marco Rubio. You probably won’t be surprised to learn that the “blatant lies” are anything but. His number one “lie” is “Rubio said different things about amnesty in Spanish and in English.” That’s what I exploded yesterday in the two posts linked at the top of this post.
I think it’s worth taking the time to dismantle these “lies.” AG Conservative’s phony list is as good a place to start as any. And so I shall address many of his claims, if not all, this week.
And AG Conservative’s “blatant lie” number two is related to “blatant lie” number one, and is already addressed in the posts and related pages that I have written. It is: “Marco Rubio has gone on Univision and said in Spanish, ‘No, no, I wouldn’t rescind amnesty.'” AG Conservative says:
That’s a direct quote from Cruz that he has repeated several times. As you can see from the Univision transcript, Rubio actually says the exact reverse. This is just a lie. Cruz has adjusted this at times to say Rubio wouldn’t get rid of Obama’s executive amnesty on “day one,” but even that is not accurate as Rubio has always held that he would get rid of DAPA (which hasn’t taken effect and is being held up by the courts) on day one.
AG Conservative says Cruz has repeated “many times” that Rubio would not rescind amnesty, without qualification (such as adding “on day one”). But to prove this point, he provides only one link, to an NBC News piece. As I said on this page:
It should be noted that this is a clipped quote, provided without video evidence, by NBC News — a partisan leftist organization that no sane conservative would trust to provide full context for any quote from a conservative. If video evidence were to emerge that shows Cruz making the claim that Rubio “wouldn’t rescind amnesty” without qualifying it with a phrase like “on day one” — and I am unaware of any such proof — then we could have a discussion about whether and to what extent Cruz’s statement was misleading, given that Rubio, in his Univision appearances, consistently contrasts DAPA, which he “would revoke,” with DACA, which he 1) would not revoke on Day One (although he has since flip-flopped on this); 2) hopes would only be revoked once a legislative amnesty passed; and 3) won’t commit to revoking without legislative amnesty, but merely says that it can’t be the policy forever.
In short, the only credible evidence I have seen of Cruz making this claim is that Rubio wouldn’t revoke Obama’s illegal executive amnesty “on day one.” And I already showed that this claim is true, in my Part Two post linked above and published yesterday. Obama’s illegal amnesty has two parts: DACA (for dreamers) and DAPA (for everyone), and Rubio has clearly said in the past, at least in Spanish, that he would not rescind DACA on day one. So this second “blatant lie” by Cruz turns out to be 100% true.
More to come this week.
UPDATE: AG Conservative on Twitter cites me three other pieces on the Internet that quote Cruz, in that single appearance, supposedly making the accusation in the manner NBC News quoted him. This doesn’t mean that Cruz actually said it without qualification (since nobody provides audio or video or even verbally explains the surrounding context). If he did say it, this doesn’t mean that it’s a “lie” — as opposed to a mistake made once, since he generally qualifies the statement. And it doesn’t discount the other arguments I made in the post showing that Rubio clearly does not want to revoke DACA. More on his obnoxious responses to me here, if you care, which I doubt.