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
No, in the Rubio picture, three out of four people smiling are Republicans. If the message is that we should always be fighting, it’s not limited to fighting Democrats. Rather, we should strive to avoid working as a team even with our own party. Nothing could do better in moving the ball.
Ummm, he did vote against it last time.
Sort of gives the lie to the idea that we demand perfection and purity, doesn’t it.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/249392-senate-votes-to-reauthorize-export-import-bank
I stand corrected. Rubio voted against it twice when “No” votes mattered and filed an amendment designed to not simply let it lapse but to kill it for good. He didn’t show up when Yes had 64 votes, but Ted Cruz did.
And I quote:
“That’s nice. That’s exactly what I mean by people manipulating and massaging their voting records to make the term “conservative” meaningless.”
It looks like we both got some new information. I like that Ted was faithful all the way through. I must say that ExIm was one of the two main items that turned me against Rubio, so will keep this in mind.
I’m nervous about Rubio’s “no exceptions” on abortion, but it isn’t that much of a problem unless he would veto a bill that had the rape and incest exceptions, I hope he’s not that stupid.
About that Gang of 8 Deal:
From National Review Online:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/430897/rubios-immigration-lies
I also read the Memo he cites in his article.
I take part of the NRO here:
Any comments, those of you who think that Rubio and Cruz are no different around the Gang of 8 Bill? I know this is sort of dead, so if I get crickets later, I’ll post as its own feed.
As far as I am concerned, this pretty much seals me on how much a liar Rubio is on immigration, and that he continues to lie on this topic. There is a huge space in my mind between him and Cruz on this topic, and reading this article made it bigger.
I am open to refutations of the Eagle Forum article, of course. I have to saw, for a Rubio staffer to say this:
Did Rubio disown that? Anyone know?
And, as has been mentioned in the thread already, there is the whole issue of a different message in Spanish.
So, after reading the Eagle Forum memo, I will clearly not vote for Rubio in the primary, and he will not see a dime, not even to get a sign, in the general election. I will vote for him as the “R”, but expect him to jam through mass amnesty as his first opportunity.
Now, excuse me while I go donate to Cruz.
… in the Rubio picture, three out of four people smiling are Republicans.
McCain (51% Heritage) not only doesn’t “fight” Dems, he collaborates with them in back rooms. Flake (68%) and Rubio got rolled by Schumer/McCain. Note that ALL Dems smiling in both pictures are laughing at the ignorance and gullibility of the Pubbies.
Do you think that there was a significant change in the rate of reform when Obama lost his supermajority? Do you think that it’s possible that that was because Obama lost his supermajority? If so, do you recognize that McCain was an essential part of that math? That it’s thanks to him (and every other Republican in the Senate at the time) that the juggernaut stopped? Susan Collins, too. Indeed, thanks to the eccentricities of the Heritage rating system, 51% isn’t that far from average; John Cornyn comes in at 44%.
I don’t know what your source is for the belief that the Democrats are rejoicing at the gullibility of Republicans rather than at completing a fairly difficult project (each stage of legislation is an effort in itself). Do you have something for that?
I would attribute it to my my great investigative style.
You learned that from Dostoevsky, didn’t you.
But defrauding the people is hard work. Surely you wouldn’t deny these politicians a moment of self-congratulation for a successful operation, would you?