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
But he would have already made the bill more likely to pass the house, causing an amnesty. Any future amendments may have gone no where, while his current one’s made the bill more likely to pass.
Never has so much depended on such a very, very, very, tiny difference.
What I think really happened is that talk radio and other opinion drivers decided Rubio betrayed them and they took him down. Now they have ruined our best chance to beat Hillary.
Rush has tried to make it somewhat right, but it is so frustrating that they have so much power, but for months they bad mouthed Rubio and gave Cruz a pass. And now the lie has become the truth.
I hate this.
BTW, Frank, as I alluded to in my first comment, if Rubio can beat Cruz and get the nomination, then he has my vote. I just think there is a difference between the two and I’m not persuaded by so-called style.
Sugary wax, waxy dirt… let’s not split hairs… they’re the same thing!
Within 3% anyway…
If Rubio is the 2016 version of a RINO Squish then we are doing much much better than we have in the past.
That said, voting for a bill and being a “vehement opponent” to a bill is not the same thing . . . no matter what failed amendments there were.
Anyhow, it’s not hard to avoid eating the sprinkles.
Thus, it is a meaningful point (or points) for you, and the argument that “The end result between Rubio and Cruz would have been the same,” pales against the sense of perfidy.
Thank you. You make my point eloquently. These things matter.
It will be in Rubio’s America!
This doesn’t work. I have about 20 comments addressing this, so this will be the last time I do.
Cruz repeatedly said he wanted the bill to pass. He either supported amnesty, or was lying.
Let us assume he was lying. Then he did so in an attempt execute his “poison pill” strategy. Supposedly, his amendment would make the bill less likely to pass the senate. Yet he, in his own words, acknowledge that the existing bill would not pass the house, and his amendments made it more likely to pass there.
He attempted to make amnesty a more acceptable prospect, and more likely to pass. Calling this a poison pill is a stretch. Either he supported amnesty, or he lied and said he did, while executing a strategy that made amnesty more likely.
Why thank you ^_^
Double post
Can someone explain to me how we are not in the middle of an on-going permanent amnesty right now? The issue is whether an Administration chooses to actually enforce the law. That is what matters.
The reform bills essentially do two things- 1) codify the extant amnesty according to some specific measures, and 2) address the big problem- chain immigration due to the family unification provisions. Like it or not, due to current case law, there is some form of amnesty right now.
We have the power as center-right citizens to assure, via constant pressure, that bad legislation does not pass.
BTW, if you do any research, you will see that the House Freedom Caucus (the super-right group there) has a lot of pro-immigration members.
Your post runs off the rails fairly early on:
While it is certainly a cliche Cruz promotes, it’s a true cliche because that is precisely what the GOP leadership thinks, by all accounts.
Look, there are many things I like about Rubio but while if I had to choose today I’d pick Cruz as my choice for nominee, Rubio will, unlike Trump, get my vote if nominated. But precisely because Rubio will be warmly enveloped by the GOP leadership if elected it is an open question for me, based on his past behavior, whether he will resist the pressure to go along to get along. I’m also concerned about the interventionist foreign policy crowd he has assembled.
This isn’t correct. Rubio’s voting record is very anti-establishment, to the extend that such things can be measured. FiveThirtyEight speculated this was why he has gotten so little support in terms of establishment endorsements.
Hmm… Also classified as an NT type here.
I’d say that not everything that even I could see might not-unreasonably be perceived as hostility in this thread has just been tightly-focused argument. For example, just saying that someone who disagrees with you is lying doesn’t automatically make an argument tighter, and earlier there seemed to be some of that going on.
Good arguments. In the spirit of camaraderie, I’m reminded of a quote by Thomas Sowell in a conversation about diversity. (Roughly) he said “I see very little evidence of people who are dramatically different from each other fighting that often- the Mexicans have no problem with the Taiwanese. But the Hutus and Tutsis, who are practically identical, are cutting each others arms off on a daily basis.”
Here’s to both arms as we head into New Hampshire!
I started as a Walker guy. I’ve always liked Rubio, and I’ve warmed up to Cruz quite a bit over time. I expect my politicians to lie, so the lawyerly devices both resort to don’t bother me so much. Though they do make me wistful for Reagan’s passive-voice candor in admitting “mistakes were made.”
We could do worse than these two.
Bingo. Compare and contrast these photos …….
I want to thank Frank for this…. I may not agree, but I do appreciate a well considered argument, and the willingness to debate the points in a rational manner.
Great post, Frank!
My take is that Cruz did in fact intend his amendment as a poison pill, and that he was being completely insincere when he claimed it would make the bill more likely to pass. The reasoning went like this: the existing bill will not pass because of Republican opposition to citizenship, so the amendment will allow the bill to pass. However, and this is the real motivation, the amendment would also make the bill unacceptable to Democrats… that’s the poison pill.
What Cruz “acknowleged… in his own words” was not a truly an acknowlegement, that was the lie. He was afraid the existing bill might pass, with unanimous Democratic support and just enough Republicans to put it over. Fortunately, it did not.
For what it’s worth, I support Rubio. But on this issue, Cruz wins in my book.
And I want to express another fear (which is just that -a fear).
I fear that Rubio will work with Ryan (consv rating of ~58%?) and McConnell (have no idea of % conservative rating) on just the type of legislation that I oppose and that has perturbed the republican base. I base this on his willingness to ‘work with’ McCain and Schumer on Gang of 8. I fear ‘more of the same’.
I don’t share feeling that Ryan is a good choice for Speaker. He may talk like a conservative, but I find he votes like a moderate. (That horrible $1 trillion spending bill, passed without shame!)
If it is prevarication, it’s the sort I can put up with. Abraham Lincoln is infamous in HS history classes for adopting a fence-straddling position on the major issue of his time, slavery. (I’m not going to get down in the weeds on this one, but suffice it to say that he was no William Lloyd Garrison.)
Cruz’s stance on Gang of Eight is a far cry from promising one thing before the election and then doing the exact opposite after election.
A lot of people cite Rubio’s charisma as a reason to vote for him. But here’s the problem with being good-looking and charismatic: You think that you can always get people to like you. It’s possible that Rubio thinks of himself as JFK, with Republicans dolled up as Jackie.
Note to self: Ryan likes cake.
I am down to three names and Rubio and Cruz are two of them. I am assuming that I’ll vote Republican this year, again.
By the way, I cannot imagine any Republican being down to Clinton. She looks like a troll in a pantsuit; and when she laughs she sounds like a troll. Her screech should put enough people off.
Frank, thanks for digging into this. Good for the perspective.
It would be interesting to see competing actual immigration plans from both men right now, that they would be willing to put their respective names behind. I’m guessing that they would be at least 95% the same.
I’m not sure who the “amnesty shills” are here at Ricochet; I haven’t seen anyone that I can remember that want illegal immigrants to actually become citizens. Please correct me if I’m mistaken. I hope that the “amnesty shill” remark isn’t a thinly veiled reference to anyone supporting Rubio.
I think Frank’s sprinkles reference was not a “shut up & do what you’re told” comment; it was more of “You have a very conservative guy in Rubio and a very conservative guy in Cruz. Sit back & enjoy; we’ve won.” If Rubio wins, I will happily support him. If Cruz wins, I will only slightly less happily support him. Either way, if one of them wins, conservatism wins.
Agreed. And check out the full response on this video. This is the sort of thing that is swaying me to Cruz’s side. It’s the opposite of pandering.
When I hear Rubio say “We’re going to grow the party,” I picture him saying it across the country–in Spanish. Perhaps that’s pragmatic, but it’s also pandering.
Given the choice, I’ll side with someone who wants not to buy votes, but to convince voters.
I do like cake! :) especially strawberry cake…
When I hear him say “We’re going to grow the party,” I hear & see him talking to people who have a distorted & inaccurate picture of conservatives & conservatism and persuading them. I don’t care what ethnicity, etc., we are talking about; we HAVE to persuade some people that voted for Obama that we are not the caricature he made us out to be. That we believe in real compassion, not government by goodies to every interest group to buy votes. Should we persuade Hispanic voters? Of course; GWB got 44% back in the day. Should we persuade Asian voters? Of course; they should be natural conservatives. We have to overcome the distortions and show people they should be with us, not the socialist or the corruptocrat.