Not voting was the same as voting “yes.”
Another example of Rubio trying to have it both ways & why we can’t trust him.
By William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection
Marco Rubio missed Friday’s vote on the Omnibus bill.
It was a bill he stated he opposed and might even try to delay.
But he didn’t show up for the vote. 98 other Senators did. Including Ted Cruz, who returned from the campaign trail to be able to just say No.
In the run up to the vote, Rubio excoriated the process used to draft the bill as well as provisions funding Syrian refugees. He suggested an effort to slow things down.
Why wasn’t Rubio there? One argument is that after Rubio mentioned slowing down the bill, the leadership used procedures to fast track it. This from a member of Mike Lee’s staff:
@guypbenson @Aaron_RS in Rubio’s defense, McConnell did sneakily lock in the votes right after Rubio said that
— Conn Carroll (@conncarroll) December 18, 2015
But that doesn’t explain a failure to vote at all.
Also, Rubio said that not voting was the same as a no vote, which is correct only in the tone deaf world of D.C. politics.
This feeds the worst narrative used by Rubio’s political opponents against him, that he plays both sides of issues. Missing the vote allows him to say he was against it, without actually casting a no vote that would have bucked the business and establishment interests supporting the bill.
As someone who has goodwill towards Rubio, though there is a trust issue on immigration, this is frustrating. Many people, including me, WANT to believe Marco Rubio 2016 is the same as Marco Rubio 2010. Give us reasons to believe, not reasons to disbelieve.
I don’t know if Rubio is deliberately trying to shoot his own campaign in the foot, or if he is out of touch with the mood of the electorate.
If Rubio or his campaign is reading this, take note. The Omnibus bill was a time to stand and be counted.
… and now, three “words” from Michael Ramirez …