Last week, I opined that, as the race shook out, we’d see Ted Cruz consolidate the outsider/TEA Party/ Conservative base voters, and Marco Rubio consolidate the Establishment/moderate voters (and clearly, NeoCons).
Notwithstanding Christie’s resurgence as a man of some, ahem, gravitas, the polls and the clashes on stage this Tuesday made it clear that Cruz and Rubio see each other as serious rivals for the nomination with serious philosophical differences: Rubio for military adventurism, regime change, and a surveillance state. Cruz for Constitutional restraint and peace through strength.
Real Clear Politics has a story on the rivalry – excerpts:
The rivalry that has flared over the past month between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio played out on the prime-time debate stage Tuesday night in Las Vegas, spotlighting consequential divides within the party over national security and immigration.
Rubio got a taste Tuesday night of what it’s like to be the frontrunner. Both Cruz and Rand Paul pounced on the Florida senator for what they characterize as his neoconservative approach to foreign policy — from defense spending to government surveillance programs to intervening in foreign wars. [See Team NeoCon, World Police]
Rubio wore the assault as a badge of honor. “The isolationist tag team duo Ted Cruz and Rand Paul tried to take on Marco. They got beat, badly,” read a campaign fundraising email sent after the debate.
Cruz again hit his fellow senator for advocating for regime change in war-torn countries where terrorist groups later emerged. “One of the problems with Marco’s foreign policy is he has far too often supported Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama undermining governments in the Middle East that have helped radical Islamic terrorists,” he said.
Cruz also argued that the USA Freedom Act he supported — legislation that replaced the controversial Patriot Act and was signed by the president last year — not only curbed the government’s bulk data collection program, which opponents argue is an infringement on civil liberties, but also strengthened tools used by law enforcement to go after terrorists.
Rubio said Cruz was wrong for supporting the bill, which he argued makes it more difficult to conduct proper intelligence gathering necessary to prevent attacks.
Paul jumped in to argue that stricter immigration restrictions could have prevented recent and future terrorist attacks at home, and accused Rubio of opposing increased border security.
Read the complete story at RCP.
