Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Tale of Two Senators
He was the most conservative of senators; He was nearly the most conservative of senators. He rode to office on a wave of anti-establishment support; He also rode to office on a wave of anti-establishment support. He supported amnesty (or lied about it); He also supported amnesty. Really, there wasn’t a dime’s worth of policy difference between them. Yet one was the darling of the right, and one was the establishment hack.
Narratives can take on a life of their own. Nowhere is this more evident than the contest between Senators Cruz and Rubio. By any objective measurement, the two are remarkably similar in terms of voting records and preferred policy positions. Despite this reality, it has become almost a cliché that Cruz is the anti-establishment hero of the right, while Rubio is a puppet of GOP leadership.
Cruz boasts an impressive 100% rating from Heritage Action. Rubio holds a meager 94%. For reference, the average Republican in the Senate scores a 60%. Perhaps you feel the Heritage Foundation is just an arm of the illuminati establishment, and uses these score cards to trick you into voting for their preferred lapdogs. We can instead look at the American Conservative Union’s ratings if you prefer, though they rate the contest closer. Rubio’s 98% lifetime rating is technically lower than Cruz’s 100%, though in practice you need a magnifying glass to detect the differences. Club for Growth has Rubio at 93%, to Cruz’s 96%.
Rubio’s detractors often point to National Journal’s ranking of him as only the 17th most conservative senator as a sign that he is not far enough to the right to get their support. “Establishment tool!” they exclaim, seemingly unaware that the National Journal bases it rankings on how members vote in relation to party leadership. Rubio’s low rating is innately tied to how often he disagrees with Mitch McConnell. Scoring poorly on a loyalty ranking is now considered evidence of being too deferential to party leadership.
Rubio’s problem with many voters on the right is no mystery. He supported the Gang of 8 immigration bill, which included amnesty for illegal immigrants. It is a black mark on his record matched only by Cruz’s support for the same bill. Cruz promised to support the bill once certain amendments were made. None of the proposed changes altered the bill’s amnesty.
Cruz’s defense is rather amazing to behold, as he claims the amendments were a poison pill. He says he knew the Democrats would find them unacceptable, and their passage would kill the Gang of 8 bill in the Senate chambers. This leaves Cruz in the humorous position of claiming he was lying in a half dozen television interviews when he said he wanted the bill to pass. Try this is court if you ever find your own words being used against you. “But Your Honor, I was lying when I said that.”
Of course, Rubio is not off the hook for his support of this bill. He deserves criticism for being so thoroughly played by Chuck Schumer. And yet, these facts have not affected the narrative all that much. Rubio is considered the amnesty traitor, while Cruz is presented as the conservative stalwart. Both are presently incredibly hawkish on border security. If I could detect an actual difference between their present positions, or their past positions, perhaps this issue would prove useful in choosing between them.
If the two are so similar on substance, how does one choose between them? The answer is Style.
Rubio is clearly the more electable candidate. Nearly every poll over the past year has shown that Rubio scores better against Clinton than Cruz does. His likability ratings also score significantly higher. The liberal wonks at FiveThirtyEight.com have consistently raised warning bells that Rubio is the biggest threat to the Democrats holding the presidency in 2016.
If Republicans nominate Rubio, they would have an excellent chance to beat Clinton by broadening their party’s appeal with moderates, millennials and Latinos. The GOP would also have an excellent chance to keep the Senate, hold onto a wide margin in the House and enjoy more control of federal government than they have in over a decade.
If they nominate Ted Cruz, Clinton would probably win, the GOP Senate majority would also be in peril and GOP House losses could climb well into the double digits.
This chart proves FiveThirtyEight’s point. Across nearly every category of voter, Rubio outperforms Cruz. Republican voters often must choose between an electable candidate and a conservative candidate. It is extremely depressing. Today, we have the opportunity to choose a man who is both electable, and extremely conservative. This is called having your cake and eating it too.
Stop telling me that the chocolate sprinkles don’t taste as good as the rainbow sprinkles, and eat your delicious cake.
Published in General
One other distinction between Rubio and Cruz. Rubio remains in favor of a path to legalization, but–and this is the salient difference–Rubio said in the penultimate debate (the semipenultimate debate after tonight?), despite Blitz’ best efforts to talk over him and so to keep him from being heard and despite the NLMSM’s spiking the story, that while he continued to favor a path, if that was not the will of the majority of Republicans or the will of the people, he would not work for it as a government official.
Cruz, on the other hand, was for the omnibus immigration bill, with trivial modifications, before he was against it.
Eric Hines
I’m on your side. I hate to be this pedantic, but I’m going to be “that guy” that comments about your comments:
You need to have thicker skin with regards to slight mischaracterizations of your position. “So dreamy” is pretty close to “electable”. You seem very hostile towards a lot of comments here, and it might be worth stepping away from the keyboard for ~15 minutes.
Don’t tell me to relax when you are lying to suit your goal of having he Latin Obama sign the amnesty bill sitting in Paul Ryan’s desk. Start discussing this thing with a bit more honesty and then we can talk about relaxing. Until then no.
This isn’t goal post moving. The problems with illegal immigration a numerous. Border towns which have to shutter hospitals and schools because they cannot absorb the costs of providing free care to masses of immigrants. The demographic changes and their effects on the countries culture.
All of these happen under an amnesty, and are unaffected by removing the path to citizenship.
You have drawn a distinction that has no practical use.
Talk about mischaracterizations. Elvis Presley was dreamy. Buddy Holly was dreamy. Marco Rubio is electable. That he also is photogenic is irrelevant and a red herring.
Eric Hines
I have not lied once. Please stop accusing me of doing so and address the numerous counter arguments I have made.
My point, which is separate from an argument, is that I’ve heard the electability angle pushed before – three times in my memory for supporting McCain in 2000, McCain again in 2008 and Romney in 2012.
The results were that McCain lost the nomination in 2000, the election in 2008 and Romney lost the election in 2012.
I don’t think electability”works very well to determine whom I should support in a primary given the fact that Rubio could perform a miracle on live TV and he’d still be demonized during the general election season.
It’s particularly galling when it’s followed by “Stop telling me that the chocolate sprinkles don’t taste as good as the rainbow sprinkles, and eat your delicious cake.” which reads an awful lot like “Shut up and do as you’re told.”
Why would Cruz make his amendment more complicated than he needed to for it to go down in defeat? He included just the minimum needed.
Talk is cheap. What are his actual plans–no glittering generalities–for doing either of these? Particularly since he needs a Republican Congress he’s been at such pains to alienate?
Eric Hines
I am less worried about how someone will vote 18-30 years from now, after growing up here, rather than in the next 5 years when they came here from a 3rd world country. Demographically there is a huge difference between the two.
Now some people might see the demographic issue as a race thing, but I do not think that is what you are shooting for here. I don’t care what someone looks like as long as they don’t vote to increase the size of the welfare state. Third Worlders are more likely to do that than their kids.
Of course, I could be totally wrong on that. But even so, Rubio was trying to give the vote to the parents and the kids, and not just the kids, so it is still worse than Cruz.
I am more than willing to give you that Rubio comes across nicer than Cruz to a lot of people. How about you just admit that, on the facts, Rubio came off worse in the Gang of 8 fiasco.
The symbolism of being part of the Gang of 8 is just more powerful than supporting the bill. It. Just. Is. No amount of reason is going to change that fact. Symbolism speaks to the non-rational part of the human mind.
Nope.
Okay, then all you have to do is this, with some credibility: Explain why Jeff Sessions voted for the Cruz amendment. If you can do that without mischaracterization or lying, then I will be satisfied that they are both the same on immigration reform.
It is all about voting and when they vote to me. It is yhuuuuugh difference if people are voting in 5 years, or 20.
Yes, god, you have truly divined the heart of this man and spake it unto the world.
/sarc
So, so good.
I see…
Rubio ran against amnesty, then in one of his first acts after he won, put his name on the gang of 8 and tried to ram amnesty through. He sponsored, supported, and voted for the bill.
Cruz tried to amend the bill to make it more palatable ( or to make it un-passable), the amendment failed, and he didn’t sponsor, nor support, nor vote for it.
So their record is exactly the same! (except Cruz is unelectable and Rubio is a shoe in)
Doesn’t it make sense to parse each example individually?
For example, my argument is you sacrifice nothing in terms of conservatism AND get the most electable candidate.
Pot calls kettle…
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) apologized to Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity on his nationally-syndicated radio program on Wednesday after being caught telling different things to Spanish and English audiences about the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill.
According to the Washington Examiner’s Byron York, Rubio told Hannity that he “probably should have been more artful in the use of terms” when he claimed on Univision to a Spanish-speaking audience that the bill first legalizes America’s at least 11 million illegal immigrants, then provides for increased border security after.
“Let’s be clear, nobody is talking about preventing the legalization,” Rubio said on Univision on Sunday. “The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: first comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.”
Rubio went on to say during that Univision interview that such “legalization” measures in this bill are “not conditional.”
conservativebyte.com/2013/06/rubio-apologizes-for-different-claims-to-spanish-english-audiences-on-immigration/
The long term is the bigger problem. The short term votes for democrats do not change the outcome of a single state. The long term ones can flip the country, which is one of the reasons why both Cruz and Rubio deserve criticism for supporting amnesty.
Even though I would be happy to vote for Cruz, I sort of get a “Nixon- crossed-with-a-preacher” vibe when I see him speak. I suspect he could not prevail in the general. That makes Rubio the most conservative candidate who can win.
“Stop telling me that the chocolate sprinkles don’t taste as good as the rainbow sprinkles, and eat your delicious cake.”
I have my bib on and fork out. May I have my cake now, please?
No my argument is that right now I have a choice to not make the GOP candidate someone who is likely to give the ChambCom their wet dream of open borders and the Dems theirs of a brand new underclass for them to replace the black community with when it comes to voting. Say what you want about them both having the same stance on the issue, but anyone with any integrity can recognize a parliamentary tactic when they see it.
Just to be clear, you are on board with Cruz’s defense that he was lying to you when he repeatedly said he wanted the reforms to pass?
Many people are influenced by style and image over substance. This is not a good thing.
Unless of course you believe Jeff Sessions.
Regardless, Rubio is my second choice for nominee and I’d gladly vote for him over Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.
However I fail to see why my vote should be swayed simply on electability grounds, particularly in favor of a candidate whose signature effort in his Senatorial career was either a huge mistake in judgement on his part and at worst a direct violation of an explicit campaign promise.
As every girl knows: Three is a trend.
“The unassailable rule of thumb is once there are three, call the trend.” – Harper’s Bazaar
I guess I don’t see people raised here as all shoe-in’s to be Democrats. As I said, I could be wrong.
Amnesty gives the democrats their permanent underclass. Not the path to citizenship, the amnesty does that. Cruz (and Rubio) supported the amnesty.
You argument is that Ted Cruz lied his tail off to anyone who would listen, and therefore never really believed in amnesty.
This argument falls flat when Ted Cruz acknowledged that the existing bill was going to die in the House. His “parliamentary tactic” was unnecessary, and he knew it.
The argument is you lose nothing on substance, and gain significant style. Please do not misrepresent it. If you believe you do lose substance, make the argument.