Paul Vs. Rubio Vs. …?

With CPAC 2013 in full swing, thoughts inevitably turn to future elections, then inevitably to who will be the next conservative standard-bearer. Two of the more talked about candidates to lead conservatives (and the GOP) out of the wilderness are senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rand Paul (R-KY), especially of late. Therefore, in that spirit, here are the convention speeches from each, in their entirety:

Prez16 provides an analysis and grading of each speech in terms of the implications for the 2016 election.

As a way of introduction, for weeks now, there’s been buzz about a growing divide between the Marco Rubio vs. Rand Paul wing of the Republican party.

Basically, it goes like this.

Rubio is the new voice of old thinking. He stands with neo-conservatives, social conservatives, and traditional economic conservatives.

Meanwhile, Rand is the new voice of new thinking: He’s pushing the GOP toward isolationism, states rights on a host of social issues, and greater civil liberties at the expense of more civil protection.

Well, CPAC’s planners must have liked the contrast, and helpfully, put Rubio and Rand back-to-back on its program today to see whether you like regular fries or curly fries.

First Rubio:

Rubio’s fundamental message was that America hasn’t irrevocably changed, that her people still want the things your grandparents and their parents wanted. His message was optimistic, it was broad, sometimes it wasn’t very realistic, but always it was inspiring.

I differ with Rubio in that I think America has become a more liberal country and is now center-left, but if anyone can nudge America toward the center-right again, it might be Rubio.

Rubio isn’t a guy who’s going to stun you with new ideas; he’s a guy who’s going to wow you with the timeless ones.

GRADE = A

Next Paul:

That’s the problem with Paul — he talks a very good isolationist game, but is always weak on operationalizing it. He’s against interventionism, except when he’s for it.

The rest of the speech was fairly pedestrian — especially considering it came with such high expectations.

To wit: If you’re a conservative trying to redefine your party’s message, and you get 15 minutes at CPAC, is this really one of your lines?

“What we need to do is to keep more money in the pockets of those who earned it.”
That sounds like the white noise Sean Hannity uses to put himself to sleep every night; not a new message from a transformational figure.

GRADE: B-

For my money’s worth (and perhaps I’m a bit biased), I’d like to add another name to the mix, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). He’s already shown that he has a firm grasp of constitutional principles, and if this exchange with Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) is any indication, his star is definitely on the rise:

All that being said (or watched, as the case may be), it’s important to keep in mind that all three are extremely junior senators (Rubio and Paul serving two years so far, Cruz sworn in just in January, 2013). It is undeniable that all three are rising stars on the right, however, a little more seasoning may be in order before a presidential run (not to mention that all three voices are desperately needed in the Senate. Also, none of the three have ever been executives (governed anything).

I’ve long thought that for this very reason, governors make better presidents than legislators. Setting aside ideology, one only has to look at the current occupant of the White House for a good example. Therefore, I think we should be taking a hard look at governors for 2016. Bobby Jindal, I’m looking at you.

UPDATE

Allahpundit brings up a good point regarding the Ted Cruz – Diane Feinstein exchange shown in the above video. Extended videos of the exchange show Feinstein, with help from Sens. Leahy (D-VT) and Durbin (D-IL) brinign up the Heller decision where the Supreme Court upheld the government’s ability to ban citizens from owning certain types of weapons (fully automatic rifles, for example), as if Cruz was unaware of the decision. On the contrary, Cruz is well aware of Heller, as he drafted the amicus brief in the case and presented oral arguments before the Supreme Court.

No. Rather, it appears as though Cruz is well aware that the gun grabbers well inevitably bring up Heller, so he leads them right there so that he can destroy that argument as well. Watch below:

A Tale of Two Parties

Today Governor Nikki Haley (R-SC) annouced that she was appointing Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) to fill the Senate seat that will be open when Sen Jim DeMint (R-SC) resigns his position to assume leadership of the Heritage Foundation. Scott is a rising star in the GOP and has a uniquely American success story, including building bridges with Strom Thurmond (the senator from SC who once ran for president as a segregationist). In fact, Scott defeated Thurmond’s son, Paul, to win his current House seat in 2010. Without falling into the identity politics trap*, it is also worth noting that Scott will be the only African-American Senator, once he is sworn in.

There is also another Senate seat that looks to be open soon. It is widely expected that President Obama will appoint John Kerry as the next Secretary of State, leaving his current Senate seat open. According to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, Governor Deval Patrick (D-MA) is looking to former Governor and failed presidential candidate Michael Dukakis as the likely interim appointment. Full disclosure: 1988 was the first presidential election in which I could vote, and I voted for Dukakis. Hey, I was 18…I’m better now.

Now with all due respect to the former governor, I think it is pretty telling about the state of the Democrat “bench” when the likely appointment for the vacant senate seat has been out of elected office for over 20 years: it’s thin. Despite holding the presidency for the past four years, who are the up and coming stars of the Democrat Party? Martin O’Malley (D-MD) (I”m originally from Maryland, he’s a disaster of a lib talking points parrot)? Julain Castro (D-TX) (I now live in the San Antonio suburbs, he hasn’t done anything – including passing his Bar Exam)? Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) (he has some name recognition, but is it possible have a lower profile?)? Hillary Clinton (wait, what?)?

Contrast that with the strong conservatives currently making their way up the Republican bench including Scott, Ted Cruz (R-TX), Susana Martinez (R-NM), Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Marco Rubio (D-FL), Scott Walker (R-WI), and Kristi Noem (R-SD). Each one of these elected officials are bright and can communicate the conservative positions on the issues well (which is sorely needed). Despite losing the presidential election this year, the GOP seems to have a bright future with these individuals making their way up the leadership ladder.

*The race-baiting from the left has already begun:

With Scott going to the Senate and Allen West losing, the 113th Congress will see no African-American Republicans in the House.

— Luke Russert (@LukeRussert) December 17, 2012

As usual, the Twitchy Team is all over it.

[UPDATE 12/17/12]

Well, it appears as though the speculation about Dukakis was just that. According to CBS Boston, Dukakis will not consider an appointment to the Senate:

In a brief State House interview, Dukakis told WBZ News: “I’m headed for the West to teach,” alluding to his annual spring-semester teaching duties at UCLA. “That’s a no,” said Dukakis in reference to a possible appointment by Gov. Deval Patrick to fill the seat until a special election can be held. Dukakis also said he had not been contacted by the governor’s office in regard to a possible appointment.

Even if the above is the case, the fact that insiders considered him a likely appointment proves the above point…and conservative still have Scott.

[UPDATE II 12/18/12]

Marco Rubio released a statement through a spokesperson last night regarding gun laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy. Via The Hill:

In the aftermath of the unspeakable tragedy in Newtown, Sen. Rubio, like millions of Americans, is looking for public policy changes that would prevent such a horrible event from happening again.

He remains a strong supporter of the Second Amendment right to safely and responsibly bear arms. But he has also always been open to measures that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. The challenge with gun laws is that by definition criminals do not follow the law. For example, Connecticut’s gun laws, some of the strictest in the nation, were not able to prevent this atrocity. Nevertheless, he supports a serious and comprehensive study of our laws to find new and better ways to prevent any more mass shootings.

At first glance, this doesn’t sound very promising – a knee-jerk reaction to Lanza’s murder spree. However, I’m not going to respond to one knee-jerk with another. I’m all for making sure that guns do not get into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill; but not at the expense of lawful and responsible gun owners. We’ll have to wait and see where this goes. In the meantime, I’m going to have to keep my eyes on Mr. Rubio. This, along with the version of the so-called “Dream Act” he has been promoting, may raise some serious questions about the senator.