Contrasting Ted Cruz’s flaw with Marco Rubio’s flaw

Ted Cruz vs Marco Rubio
Marco Rubio vs Ted Cruz: the fatal flaws

This article from Asia Times was sent to me by my friend Patrick, and I really loved it. The article finds what’s wrong with each of the candidates, and I agree with their assessment.

First Ted Cruz.

I guess I’ve said before that I disagree with Cruz on foreign policy. His record shows that he opposed data collection on Americans to toughen up national security, and that he opposed the interventions in Libya, Egypt and Syria.

Here’s the excerpt:

Cruz first drew the wrath of the Establishment in the fall of 2014 when he averred that the US had stayed too long in Iraq, adding that the US should not try to turn Iraq into Switzerland. That is not merely heresy, but an existential threat to an Establishment that went all in on the Bush Freedom Agenda, up through and including the abortive, misnomered “Arab Spring.” Americans forgive a lot, but they don’t easily forgive a leadership that sends American soldiers into harm’s way on behalf of a failed social experiment.

Yes. All true. I don’t agree with Cruz on most of those views. I wanted us to stay the course in Afghanistan and Iraq. I didn’t want us in Libya or Egypt, but I wanted us to invade Syria after they crossed the red line and to stay there as long as it took to get Iranian influence out. I want our armed forces to destroy regimes that harbor terrorists and stay over there, even if we don’t engage in nation-building. Also, I am all for warrant-less aggregate data collection and enhanced interrogation techniques. Now, I think I’m in the minority there, and more people agree with Cruz’s libertarian streak, but I’m a hawk. I believing in projecting American power against our enemies.

I sent this post to Lindsay for validation, and she said that Cruz voted for expanding gathering information through cell phones and other communication, but no searches without a warrant. Cruz is a stickler for the Constitution, that’s why he opposes warrant-less searches, but I don’t think of aggregate data collection as a warrant-less search. To me, you gather the data, and then you restrict searches on it to specific numbers that you have a warrant for – but you gather the data first, so that it’s there for you to search on it.

Now the author also says that “it is likely that Cruz would try to widen the gap between America’s military technology and the rest of the world’s.” And that’s correct. Cruz would do that. So I’m not in complete disagreement with him, only the things I said.

Now Marco Rubio.

OK, now, I’ve blogged before about Marco Rubio’s mistakes:

And in addition to that, I found two more this week. Marco Rubio also supports sugar subsidies, which is just crony capitalism. And he got a D rating from pro-marriage activist Maggie Gallagher regarding his response to the Obergefell decision, which redefined marriage for all 50 states. (Cruz opposes all subsidies, e.g. – ethanol, and he got an A- rating on his response to the gay marriage Supreme Court decision).

The article explains the common thread in all 8 of these mistakes by Rubio.

It says:

Endearing, boyish, photogenic and eloquent, Marco Rubio is the candidate that Central Casting sent the Establishment from the studio pool. Rubio, a middling student at university and a Florida machine politician throughout his career, says his lines well but does not have an original thought about foreign policy. That is why the Establishment likes him. Cruz knows that the Establishment is naked, and is willing to say so. That’s why they don’t like him. They aren’t supposed to. They look at him the way a rice bowl looks at a hammer.

Marco Rubio just allows himself to get swept up in fashionable causes, and that’s why he bands together with Democrats on their priorities so often.

This quotation from a recent Matt Walsh column hits the nail on the head about why some people prefer Rubio to Cruz:

People say Ted Cruz is awkward, boring, weird looking, and lacks any semblance of style or charm. And they’re right. I agree with those observations. The guy is a total bummer on a personality level. If we were in fifth grade I probably wouldn’t invite him to my sleepover.

Rubio supporters dismiss the items in my list of Rubio failures with a shrug. Who cares, they say. They want to make the decision about who should be President as if they were having a sleepover. Who should I invite? I’ll invite the guy isn’t much smarter than me, and who goes along with me, when I want to be mischievous. Not that Ted Cruz, he went to Princeton and Harvard Law, and clerked for Justice J. Michael Luttig and Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He was Solicitor General of Texas, and argued and won cases that defended conservative causes at the Supreme Court – when it was majority liberal. He’s too stuck-up, successful and strict  for my sleepover. He worries too much about the Constitution and doing the right thing, and will never have any fun if it means breaking the rules. I’m voting for Rubio to come to my sleepover! Fun and thrills!

So, this is the core problem with Marco Rubio, and it explains why the establishment loves him. He has average intelligence, and limited accomplishments. He draws opinions from the people around him, and is driven by peer-pressure and media acclaim to act against conservative interests. That’s why he sides with Democrats on issues like amnesty, Libya, campus due process, gay marriage, etc. It’s popular, and Rubio does what the cool kids want him to do.

But we’re not picking a kid to come to our sleepover, America. We’re picking the President of the United States. I think Rubio would make a great Vice President under President Cruz, and then he can run for President again in 2024.

7 thoughts on “Contrasting Ted Cruz’s flaw with Marco Rubio’s flaw”

  1. “I think Rubio would make a great Vice President, and then a great President in 2024.”

    At this point, VP to whom? Yet, wouldn’t his flaws still be a risk should the president above him be influenced in any way by him? And as to 2024, if nothing changes about his flaws, then I don’t see that he’d make a great president ever. Better than some for sure. Great? Uh….


    1. Agreed. Reagan made that mistake in 1980, resulting in the Bush dynasty and RINO candidates ever since 1988. If Cruz wins, let’s pray he does not set up the establishment again for that kind of dominance.


  2. Reagan, a man of average intelligence, a Hollywood actor for a large portion of his life, a great speaker (The Great Communicator), who would later, as Governor of California, pass a pro-abortion bill, raise taxes and later on as POTUS grant amnesty, advocate gun control and was against term limits for the Presidency. If we compare Reagan to Cruz, Reagan would make a great VP for under Cruz and after Ted mentored him he would be a great President. Don’t get me wrong I am NOT comparing Rubio to Reagan, I’m saying that given the standards used we can make a case that Reagan, the icon of Conservatism, isn’t as conservative as Cruz.


    1. I actually agree that Reagan was not as consistently conservative as Cruz. We all look up to Reagan, but he did make some mistakes. However, where he was right, he was a stalwart defender of conservative principles, and he was mostly right. That’s why he was a great President. I think Cruz has a better foundation in conservatism and there is evidence that he is every bit as principled and steadfast on his beliefs as Reagan, and thus has the potential to be a better President than Reagan. The one thing Reagan had on Cruz was his likability and ability to deliver great lines that made a point while also making people laugh. Cruz isn’t quite as good at that.


  3. Nice writeup though I disagree with you on Syria.

    There is also a difference between Cruz and Rubio on the Iowa ethanol subsidies which centers around the RFS (Renewable Fuel Standard) set to expire in 2022. Cruz want to faze out the subsidy over the next five years. Rubio want to let it run full bore for until it expires. Technically their positions are similar but the ethanol industry clearly believes Cruz while yawning about Rubio’s stance evidenced by their exclusive focus of attack ads against Cruz and America’s Renewable Future following Cruz around in an RV to counter-campaign against Cruz. That said both Cruz and Rubio are far better than Trump or them dems who want to renew and keep forcing the spoils system intact. Watch’s trump endorse the subsidy:

    Why I think there were no good options with Syria. All the warring sides are our enemies there; going in early against Assad would not have prevented ISIS and probably would have made it stronger by removing one of its enemies. Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. In Afghanistan and Iraq we had friendly allies going in. The northern alliance in Afghanistan and the Kurds in Iraq. From what I can tell, in Syria there aren’t any friendly forces of any significance whatsoever. Meaning to do any good Syria would be a long term nation building endeavor. Since we prematurely pulled out of Iraq, Syria would have had even less chance of success. The main policy failure was Obama removing our forces from Iraq which could have repelled the ISIS incursion/occupation of Iraq putting a stop to all their grandiose recruiting talk about having established a new caliphate. And at least contained and constrained the war.


    1. Well, wait. I think the moment to act has passed in Syria. I would not go in there now!!!!

      There was a time before the redline when we could have helped the moderates. That time is long gone.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s