Green Room

Audio: My interview with Marco Rubio

posted at 12:56 pm on June 26, 2013 by

Via Steve at Common Cents, who put it in a YouTube.  Sen. Marco Rubio rebutted a few of the criticisms of Corker-Hoeven in my guest-hosting gig for Hugh Hewitt show:

Duane posted the transcript last night, and here’s an excerpt:

EM: Senator Rubio, obviously we’re going to be talking a lot about the Corker-Hoeven Amendment. The language of this dropped on Friday. It has been criticized among conservatives for not being tough enough on actually making sure that the border fence will be built. I know that this one particular piece of language people are very concerned about. The language says, “Notwithstanding paragraph 1, nothing in this subsection shall require the Secretary to install fencing or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such fencing in a particular location along the Southern border if the Secretary determines that the user placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the Southern border at such location.” Senator Rubio, the criticism that is coming up on this is that this language allows a very large exception here that could mean that the Secretary might determine that none of the border fencing is really the most effective use of resources in terms of securing the Southern border. Is this that big of a loophole? Because it does appear to be a bit of a concern.

MR: Right, it’s not a loophole at all, and let me explain why. First of all, they’re reading that paragraph in isolation from the rest of the section. The section mandates that there has to be 700 miles of fence. Period. There has to be 700 miles. The only discretion the Secretary has, and whether it’s this secretary or a future one, because the fence is going to take a number of years to build, the only discretion they have is where the fence goes. So for example, they’ll have discretion about not having to build a fence on the top of a 5,000 foot mountain. They can say look, maybe the fence shouldn’t go here, it should go in some other part of the border. But 700 miles of fence must be built. That, it does not change at all. There must be…if there aren’t 700 miles of fence, there are no green cards available for people that have violated our immigrations laws. It goes one step further, by the way. The way the amendment is written, it actually requires them as the first option to replace existing vehicle barriers. Here’s what’s happened. In 2006, they passed a law that said there had to be 700 miles of fencing. The next year, the Congress defunded that.

EM: Right.

MR: They said oh, you can only do, you don’t have to do double fencing. You can even do vehicular fencing. So you’ll have a road, and what they do is they put up some barriers to a car. So maybe you can’t drive a car through that, but someone can just walk right past that stuff. The bill actually requires that that be replaced with a real fence, a real pedestrian fence. So here’s the bottom line. They’re reading that wrong. You must have 700 miles of fencing, no exception, period. The only thing that the Department gets to choose is where that fence goes along those 700 miles.

If you missed it earlier this morning, I posted the transcript of my interview with Jeff Sessions from last night, too. Sessions gave his side of this debate over Corker-Hoeven, so be sure to read both.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

What difference, at this point, does it make?

joekenha on June 26, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Ed, why in the world do you keep giving this lying liar a platform?

beatcanvas on June 26, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Ed, why in the world do you keep giving this lying liar a platform?

[beatcanvas on June 26, 2013 at 1:11 PM]

Isn’t it obvious?

Dusty on June 26, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Isn’t it obvious?

Dusty on June 26, 2013 at 1:23 PM

When Sessions, who has it right here, doesn’t get the billing that Rubio’s getting, yeah – it certainly feels obvious.

I thought HA was a right-leaning blog…

beatcanvas on June 26, 2013 at 1:26 PM

You’ had best check for your wallet after interviewing turncoat Rubio. He doesn’t impress as one of many scruples.

viking01 on June 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM

I think Marco just made the point for his opposition on this issue, didn’t he.

On top of being a liar, and a traitor, he’s also this stupid.

stenwin77 on June 26, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Ed Morrissey, the new Softball King.

Congratulations, I suppose. But I would be embarrassed by this “interview”, if I asked those questions.

Nessuno on June 26, 2013 at 1:56 PM

EM: Right.

Ouch. Tough followup from the Sean Hannity of conservative bloggers. Hope he’s at least getting an eight figure salary for his efforts.

sauldalinsky on June 26, 2013 at 2:06 PM

When Sessions, who has it right here, doesn’t get the billing that Rubio’s getting…

I’m waiting to get permission to post Sessions’ interview separately. When I get it, I’ll post it in the GR for sure. In the meantime, I wanted to make sure that everyone had the link to the transcript — which I posted earlier in the main blog (see the Cruz thread).

Ed Morrissey on June 26, 2013 at 2:07 PM

I guess wanting continued access to the increased exposure (and income) that comes with guest hosting the Hugh Hewitt Show lends itself to softball interviews.

diditagain on June 26, 2013 at 2:09 PM

An odd phenomena I noticed, once deceived, just once, and BLAM all those Boy Scout merit badges go poof and so does my interest in listening to

one

more

word.

Apparently, I turned into a Jewish mom, “You’re dead ta me.”

bour3 on June 26, 2013 at 2:24 PM

On top of being a liar, and a traitor, he’s also this stupid.

stenwin77 on June 26, 2013 at 1:55 PM

A traitor, yes, but I wouldn’t call Rubio stupid.

He’s simply chosen the 30 pieces of silver in trade to plant the Judas’ kiss on his constituents. Where power corrupts absolutely.

viking01 on June 26, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Drew M @ AoSHQ has a post up on Rubio, which is good blogging but he’s not influenced by career advancement or ingratiating himself with the elites.

Rubio Takes To Senate Floor To Claim He’s Still A Conservative

Dusty on June 26, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Tell us Senator Rubio, What’s your favorite color?/

portlandon on June 26, 2013 at 2:40 PM

[viking01 on June 26, 2013 at 2:26 PM]

No, Rubio is not stupid. He’s just taken a page from Obama’s modus operandi, which works well if you don’t have qualms about lying constantly.

Dusty on June 26, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Tell us Senator Rubio, What’s your favorite color?/

portlandon on June 26, 2013 at 2:40 PM

My guess is it would be green and lots of it if you know what I’m saying…

(Monty Python Bridge of Doom reference noted.)

viking01 on June 26, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Sen. Marco Rubio rebutted a few of the criticisms of Corker-Hoeven

Did he really, Ed?

steebo77 on June 26, 2013 at 2:48 PM

It’s obvious that Allahpundit has nothing but disdain for Rubio.

Meanwhile, Ed…

steebo77 on June 26, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Dusty on June 26, 2013 at 2:45 PM

That, and imperiling the very national identity and sovereignty which has preserved our nation these nearly
237 years.

Rubio is the same as Benedict Arnold. He started with considerable ability to do good and accomplish honorable things and then he changed.

viking01 on June 26, 2013 at 2:51 PM

viking01 on June 26, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Arnold actually did accomplish honorable things. I’ve read the opinion that without Arnold’s leadership in the Battle of Saratoga we would have lost the War for Independence.

http://www.history.navy.mil/muexhib/lakech-7.htm

Benedict Arnold’s name is associated most with the word “traitor,” however, he was a brilliant, victorious leader during the early years of the War for American Independence. Arnold oversaw the construction of the gunboats on Lake Champlain and commanded the fleet that stalled the British advance on the colonies in October 1776. Some argue that Arnold’s brilliance on the lake saved the colonies from an early loss to the stronger British forces.

Arnold then went on to play a pivotal role at the Battle of Saratoga in New York. While disobeying a commanding officer, Arnold took charge of three army regiments and ultimately forced a British surrender. This victory convinced the French that the American cause was not lost and they threw support to the Americans.

Arnold saw first hand the struggles of the American troops due to the lack of food, clothing, and supplies during the war. He petitioned the Continental Congress for resources, was denied, and then became disillusioned with the American cause. In 1780, Arnold conspired with the British to reveal secret defenses at West Point, NY, which proved unsuccessful. Knowing that his co-conspirator would be hanged as spy for espionage, Arnold left his family to flee the country to escape being charged with treason. He served in the British Army and in 1781 led a British attack against Virginia destroying the Virginian Navy. He remained in exile for twenty years until he died in London in 1801.

Kenneth Roberts wrote some great historical fiction on Arnold. Roberts was renowned for his accuracy. Try finding and reading Arundel and Rabble in Arms.

Roberts presents Arnold as a brilliant and fascinating man who sadly didn’t have the character to survive years of run-in’s with an incompetent Congress and being passed over for promotions because of politics.

INC on June 26, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Rubio

Bmore on June 26, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Rubio lied. I don’t get how else to explain it. He was against amnesty before he was for it. Or did I miss something?

gryphon202 on June 26, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Rubio lied. I don’t get how else to explain it. He was against amnesty before he was for it. Or did I miss something?

gryphon202 on June 26, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Noooo, Dorco didn’t lie, he “evolved,” just like 0dumba did on gay marriage!

Anti-Control on June 26, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Like his Brother-From-Another-Mother, Obama, Rubio is a pathological liar, but not as good at it.

VorDaj on June 26, 2013 at 8:37 PM

INC on June 26, 2013 at 4:00 PM

I’m aware of Benedict Arnold’s accomplished past.

That is what made his betrayal of what he previously had stood for and defended all the more repulsive and shameful.

viking01 on June 26, 2013 at 9:35 PM

viking01 on June 26, 2013 at 9:35 PM

My point was comparing their past before their betrayals.

Rubio has accomplished nothing that I know of. Arnold made invaluable contributions.

Rubio wasn’t even dealing with the effects of stupid and short-sighted Congressional decisions as Arnold was.

All in all Rubio compares badly with Arnold.

And the consequences of his actions may be far worse.

INC on June 26, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Marco Judas Rubio

S-E-L-L O-U-T and B-O-O-T-L-I-C-K-E-R to left-wing scumbags like Schumer. What a dope.

Conservchik on June 27, 2013 at 1:01 AM