The Overblown Fight Between Rand Paul and Ted Cruz

Cruz’s tiff with Paul over Ukraine lacks substance and a winning strategy.

Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Rand Paul, R-Ky.
National Journal
Matt Vasilogambros
March 10, 2014, 8:57 a.m.

There’s a big fight brew­ing between two of the lead­ing voices of the Re­pub­lic­an Party. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz may be “good friends,” but their dif­fer­ences in for­eign policy of­fer a stark con­trast between the two sen­at­ors flirt­ing with cam­paigns to be­come the next com­mand­er in chief.

In terms of ex­cit­ing polit­ic­al nar­rat­ives, this one is pretty good, and it was one of the big head­lines that came out of CPAC and this Sunday’s talk shows. But it’s not en­tirely ac­cur­ate, and very much over­blown.

This latest “fight” between the two po­ten­tial pres­id­en­tial can­did­ates is more one-sided — an at­tempt by Cruz to find some dif­fer­ence in policy to gain fa­vor among a base that might be slip­ping from his fin­gers. It’s more of a dif­fer­ence in tone, not policy.

Cruz on Sunday tried to sep­ar­ate him­self from his po­ten­tial rival Paul, telling This Week, “I don’t agree with him on for­eign policy.”

The Texas Re­pub­lic­an con­tin­ued: “I think U.S. lead­er­ship is crit­ic­al in the world, and I agree with him that we should be very re­luct­ant to de­ploy mil­it­ary force abroad, but I think there is a vi­tal role, just as Ron­ald Re­agan did.”

ABC’s Jonath­an Karl, who in­ter­viewed Cruz, ate it up. “Cruz’s ap­proach stands in stark con­trast with fel­low tea parti­er Rand Paul,” the re­port­er said.

So, if Cruz’s ap­proach mir­rors Re­agan’s, where does that leave Paul?

“I’m a great be­liev­er in Ron­ald Re­agan. I’m a great be­liev­er in a strong na­tion­al de­fense,” Paul told Fox News Sunday.

Paul took this idea fur­ther, pen­ning an op-ed Monday de­scrib­ing Re­agan’s for­eign policy as based on both “peace through strength” and dip­lomacy.

Fine, they both want to have the same for­eign policy as Re­agan. But what about spe­cif­ic is­sues, such as Ukraine?

Cruz told ABC on Sunday that the ap­pro­pri­ate path in the re­gion would be for the U.S. to im­ple­ment sanc­tions against Rus­sia, say­ing that mil­it­ary in­ter­ven­tion was not needed.

And Paul? Well, he thinks there should be sanc­tions and visa bans too.

But look at how this star­ted. Just a few days be­fore Rus­sia sent troops in­to the Crimea re­gion of Ukraine — when the only ac­tion Vladi­mir Putin had taken was through backchan­nels — Paul told The Wash­ing­ton Post, “Some on our side are so stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Rus­sia all the time and I don’t think that is a good idea.”

Three days later, the situ­ation drastic­ally changed, and so did Paul’s tone. But this is still the quote that many on the right have used to at­tack Paul’s for­eign policy, des­pite his com­ments since.

So, this isn’t much of a dif­fer­ence in policy in Ukraine. It’s not really even a dif­fer­ence in ag­gress­ive tone against Putin. What, then, is the prob­lem here? It’s polit­ics.

Paul came out as the big vic­tor at the CPAC straw poll on Sat­urday, earn­ing 31 per­cent sup­port. Cruz was in second, but with only 11 per­cent sup­port — a dis­con­cert­ing dis­tance from the win­ner.

Cruz, who sees his Re­pub­lic­an col­league from Ken­tucky main­tain­ing his pop­ular­ity with the con­ser­vat­ive base, is try­ing to use for­eign policy as a way to gain fa­vor. But that’s not ne­ces­sar­ily the best idea. He should have asked Marco Ru­bio.

One of the big­ger flops at CPAC was the Flor­ida Re­pub­lic­an, once seen as a young con­ser­vat­ive darling who could win with wide ap­peal. Today, though, he’s but a blip on the radar after isol­at­ing many con­ser­vat­ives with his work on im­mig­ra­tion re­form. At­tempt­ing to win sup­port back, he went on the of­fens­ive with for­eign policy.

In his speech on Fri­day, he tried to re­gain his con­ser­vat­ive bona fides by con­trast­ing him­self with Paul by mak­ing a strong case for Amer­ic­an in­ter­ven­tion­ism over­seas.

And how did it pan out for him? He fin­ished in a very dis­tant sev­enth place at CPAC, with only 6 per­cent sup­port. For someone who got second place last year, that’s quite the dis­ap­point­ing fin­ish. His speech did not work with that audi­ence (the mes­sage could res­on­ate with voters out­side of CPAC, like his ac­tion on im­mig­ra­tion).

Now Cruz is at­tempt­ing a sim­il­ar strategy. But if Cruz wants to stand apart from the front-run­ner, he needs to find an­oth­er is­sue. He won’t win with this one.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4800) }}

What We're Following See More »
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
3 days ago

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
3 days ago

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
3 days ago

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
2 days ago

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.