The Washington Post is trying to set up a divide between Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and the grassroots tea party movement that was so influential in helping Rubio get to Washington in 2010. In analyzing the current immigration reform debate in the senate, the Post claimed Rubio can’t champion new immigration policies and maintain his good standing with the tea party movement:
Is the Florida senator the once and future darling of the tea party, throwing bombs from the sidelines? Or is he a substantive architect of a workable new system? It’s one or the other; Mr. Rubio needs to decide.
Rubio’s main objection to the current deal being discussed by the “Gang of Eight” is that border security is not addressed in a real and comprehensive way. You don’t have to be a “bomb-throwing tea partier” to want robust border security as a measure to finally stop the flow of illegal immigration once and for all. But, according to the Washington Post, Rubio is stuck between the right-wing yahoos and mainstream Americans. You know, mainstream Americans like those in the Washington Post editorial board.
The purpose of the WaPo editorial is not to inform its readers about the ongoing immigration negotiations; it’s to set up a fake political dilemma for a conservative politician the left greatly fears. They would love to put Marco Rubio in one of two categories: “unelectable, tea party extremist” or “hypocritical politician who betrayed his loyal base.”
But the premise is set up on a lie. Tea party conservatives are not against the idea of immigration reform, they just don’t like the kind of “reform” the Washington Post endorses. Immigration reform that includes robust and effective border security and no amnesty with citizenship for those currently in America illegally would truly be reform, but to the Washington Post, that’s a political position best described as “throwing bombs from the sidelines.”
Sen. Rubio should be happy, all the right people appear to be out to get him.