Sen. Marco Rubio may run for president in 2016, or he may not. The Florida Republican hasn’t made up his mind. That’s perfectly natural at this early stage. What’s not natural is Rubio’s inability to make up his mind about anything else.
Rubio’s latest somersault concerns Syria. On Sept. 4 Rubio voted in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee opposing the use of force against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Rubio had told Fox News that he was “very skeptical” about any planned retaliation against the Aug. 21 chemical attack that killed 1,400 Syrians.
Could this be the same Rubio who two years ago called on the Obama administration to “stop dithering as innocent Syrians die at the hands of a merciless regime” that “directly acted against the national security interests of the United States”? The Rubio who, one year ago, said in a speech to the Brookings Institution, “The nations in the region see Syria as a test of our continued willingness to lead in the Middle East”? And “If we prove unwilling to provide leadership, they will conclude that we are no longer a reliable security partner”?
Rubio says he changed his mind because now it’s too late. “What we’re seeing here now is proof and an example of when America ignores these problems, these problems don’t ignore us,” he said at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
The situation in Syria has indeed changed. The rebel forces have been infiltrated by al Qaeda, making a satisfactory outcome to regime change much harder to achieve. Had the U.S. intervened more aggressively at an earlier date, al Qaeda might have been prevented from getting a foothold. Or it might not.
“When the facts change, I change my mind,” John Maynard Keynes famously said (though like many memorable quotes, it’s probably apocryphal). “What do you do, sir?” That would be a reasonable rejoinder coming from almost anybody else. But for Rubio, the facts change with suspicious frequency.
Before Syria there was immigration. In the Florida House of Representatives, Rubio co-sponsored college tuition breaks for undocumented immigrants (2003-4), and as House Speaker he smothered multiple bills imposing restrictions on them (2008).
Then, as a U.S. Senate candidate, Rubio blasted his opponent, Charlie Crist, for favoring an “earned path to citizenship” that Crist said wasn’t amnesty. Rubio said it was, too, amnesty. “It is unfair to the people that have legally entered this country to create an alternative pathway for individuals who entered illegally and knowingly did so,” Rubio said (2010).
As Senator, Rubio was asked by National Journal whether he still favored tuition breaks for undocumented immigrants. First he hedged by saying in a written statement that they should be limited only to immigrants who came as children and have “exhibited good moral character.” A week later, he said they shouldn’t be given at all (2011).
A few months after that, Rubio objected to “harsh and intolerable rhetoric” used by fellow Republicans on the issue (2012). Then, after Latinos demonstrated their electoral muscle on the immigration issue in the 2012 election, Rubio came out in favor of the Senate’s Gang of Eight immigration bill (2013), which contained several elements that Rubio had denounced in 2010. This last flip-flop won him designation by Time magazine as “The Republican Savior.”









