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
I first became a conservative largely because of the issue of judicial appointments to the United States Supreme Court. That’s still a key issue with me. I have no doubt that, if nominated and elected, Cruz would appoint good conservatives to the USSC – not to mention the federal Court of Appeals and District Courts. However, he must first get elected. I adhere to the Buckley Rule: I’ll support the most conservative candidate who can get elected. I’m not convinced that person is Cruz; I am convinced it’s Rubio. I simply cannot stomach 4 (or worse, 8) years of President Hillary Clinton. If we can get a commitment from Rubio that he’ll appoint justices like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, I’m all in for him (yes, I know that Kennedy and Roberts were appointments from Republican presidents – but just look at the 4 justices on the current court who were appointed by liberal Democrat presidents! Roberts, and even Kennedy, are at least correct some of the time!). Perhaps a President Rubio could appoint Cruz to the Supreme Court – everybody wins!!
Pugshot, I have been arguing that for a while; Cruz would be a fantastic Supreme Court justice. He would absolutely eviscerate lawyers arguing before him; would make Scalia look like a shrinking violet.
I agree with this last and in order for this to happen we cannot have party leadership in the Congress operating under the same pattern as most recently.
I hear that too–but unfortunately, given his past, I also hear “Amnesty so they will love me, amnesty so they will love me, amnesty so they will love me.”
Roberts is way, way, way better than Kennedy. Roberts only broke ranks on Obamacare. Kennedy breaks ranks regularly, including on SSM and abortion.
Kennedy has been good on a number of issues, including free speech and federalism.
But what a time to join the other side.
So your position is that Romney should have sat out the issues in Massachusetts and just let the 87% Democrat legislature pass its single payer bill? It tends to be obvious when someone quotes bumper-stickers and has zero knowledge of what actually happened in Massachusetts and why, let alone the work at the time of the Ethan Allen Institute.
Or is it that all Republicans should always be threatening to punch all Democrats?
I agree with Frank.
I object to the use of amnesty to describe the Gang of 8 bill. I did not support the bill. It had many problems, the worst of which was a path to citizenship. But it was not amnesty.
Under the Gang of 8 bill, illegals could obtain permanent legal status after 10 years and after paying penalties totaling $2,000. That is not amnesty, it is a fine. I’d like the fine to be bigger, but not vastly bigger. I’d like something in the $5,000 to $10,000 range.
Many seem to use the word amnesty as a shorthand for anything other than immediate deportation of all illegals. These are not the same thing. It is perfectly legitimate to support a policy of 100% deportation, but I don’t think that it’s fair to characterize everyone who disagrees as a supporter of amnesty.
I don’t know what, specifically, Rubio may have said about not supporting amnesty. But even if he said that, I don’t think that he violated such a pledge in the Gang of 8 bill.
Now I think that the Gang of 8 bill was bad, and I strongly disagree with Rubio’s support of any path to citizenship. He deserves criticism on the issue. But I don’t think that he violated any anti-amnesty pledge that he may have made.
Oh my gosh! You’re suggesting that growing the party by welcoming Hispanic voters is pandering? We will never grow as a party without being welcoming to minorities.
The argument that Obamacare was unconstitutional was actually quite a stretch, under post-1930s Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
There is one other big difference. Obamacare is merely and act of Congress, and can be repealed by another act of Congress. On both abortion and SSM, bad SCOTUS decisions took the issue completely out of the political process.
Don’t get me wrong — I was disappointed with Roberts for the Obamacare votes, and I would have ruled the other way. But he is a far more consistent conservative vote than Kennedy.
I will happily vote for either one if they are the nominee.
During the Florida U.S. Senate debate aired on CNN on 10/24/10 Rubio said this:
RUBIO: First of all, earned path to citizenship is basically code for amnesty. It’s what they call it. And the reality of it is this. This has to do with the bottom line that America cannot be the only country in the world that does not enforce its immigration laws.
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. And all I’m saying is that if you do that…
(CROSSTALK)
RUBIO: If I may finish statement on this. If you do that, you will never have a legal immigration system that works. No one is going to follow the law if there is an easier way to do it.
I’m not sure what he could do short of driving illegals across the border in his own car that would convince you.
Golly, Rubio really sounded like he was committed to that view in 2010, didn’t he?
It’s seems to me that if you are a Rubio supporter trying to convince Cruz supporters or Cruz supporters trying to convince Rubio supporters, you are going to have to push the reset button sometime and just focus on what they are saying and behaving like now. Failing that, just acknowledge that when one is finally dragged off the field, the supporters of the losers will enthusiastically line up behind the winner — cause there ain’t no other choice. And if it’s Trump, well, hell.
I’m excited! Four NH polls show Rubio ahead of Cruz in everyone of them… I hope this trend continues.
The crucial thing is that Rubio finishes ahead of Jeb!.
Eh, I think I need a drink
Immigration is one issue. Why is this the end all for some voters? I’m sick of it. It’s not even that important an issue.
Ehh, no. Saying “Hispanics should vote conservative because conservatives support faith, family, and freedom, all of which are important to Hispanic voters”– that would be “welcoming” Hispanic voters to the Republican party.
Saying “OK, you broke the law to get here, now you can stay for free and your kids can vote; come next election, please please please don’t forget that it’s the Republicans who did this for you”–that’s pandering.
Agreed. I wasn’t clear about this, but I hadn’t read those accusations before writing my original post. I tried to account for them in the update.
If Rubio is the nominee I will probably vote for him if I wake up and/or sober up in time to get to my township polling place. I am also looking into options to avoid consciousness during his administration.
In the meantime, I’m thinking of a bumper sticker along the lines of “Bill Clinton + ethics + goodwill = Ted Cruz.” Might need to buy a bigger car with a bigger bumper.
To add to this point: Rubio did not vote against the ExIm bill and the Ryan budget. Ted Cruz went to Iowa and spoke against ethanol corporate welfare. Those are not just differently flavored sprinkles.
I’ve been struggling with making a decision between Cruz and Rubio. I really don’t like Cruz’s Televanglist style and think he’s not the best for carrying the conservative flag when it comes to convincing the unconvinced.
This post, and Jim Geraghty’s newsletter today, reminds me that Rubio is reliably conservative no matter what Ted Cruz says and anyone that tries to tie Rubio to the dreaded “Establishment”.
At least with Rubio he seems to have learned from his mistake with the Gang of 8 and I hope he can be counted on to be more shrewd in his political dealings. I have no comfort that Ted Cruz won’t walk into a political bear trap.
I only slightly favour Rubio of the two and that only because he has been slightly more outspoken on life issues and been openly friendly to a couple of pro-life ministries we have connections with. That’s it. And like you, I find it frustrating and somewhat baffling that so many have created this false division between them tht you so aptly described- and that their campaigns have encouraged it. Yes, sure, it’s a campaign and one tries to underscore distinctions, but don’t make them up for crying out loud! Just state your policies and don’t go into tossing Jarts ™ at each other. And may the best man win.
Thanks for this post Frank. You put into words what I have been pondering for months. I like both Cruz and Rubio and hope that one of them beats Trump in the primaries. The head-to-head ratings graphic you included is the tie-breaker for me. Losing the upcoming election would be catastrophic for our Country. If Rubio gives us the best chance to win then I will gladly vote for him in the primary election.
I also want to make the point that everyone on the Conservative side who claims Rubio’s support for amnesty is a deal-breaker is blowing that way out of proportion. Even if he still secretly supports doing something like that (he claims his position has changed), Congress will not go along. Rubio is not Obama. He is vocal about not using Executive Orders to circumvent Congress. This issue is a red herring in my view. Rubio will not ignore the wishes of his party and push for amnesty in our current environment. Give the guy some credit. He is not suicidal or stupid.
Maybe it’s time for a Ricochet poll. Which is more important to you: 1) electability, or 2) winning.
Do you want to run out the clock with the prevent defense, or do you want to play offense?
How pray tell does one win without getting elected?
This isn’t the choice in front of us. You have an electable, extremely conservative candidate.
But…but…amnesty…something….something…GOPe….something…end of the country…blah…blah…blah