Marco Rubio Gets Benghazi'd By Ted Cruz

Talking Points Memo ^ | December 1, 2015 | Tierney Sneed

[Isara]

In the latest front in Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-TX) battle with 2016 rival Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Cruz blamed the Florida senator for supporting Hillary Clinton's Libya policy that, in Cruz's words, led to the Benghazi attacks.

"Senator Rubio emphatically supported Hillary Clinton in toppling [Muammar] Qaddafi in Libya. I think that made no sense," Cruz told Bloomberg Politics Monday, connecting the U.S. military intervention to the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans.

"The terrorist attack that occurred in Benghazi was a direct result of that massive foreign policy blunder," Cruz claimed.

"If you look at President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and for that matter some of the more aggressive Washington neo-cons, they have consistently mis-perceived the threat of radical Islamic terrorism and have advocated military adventurism that has had the effect of benefiting radical Islamic terrorists," Cruz said.

The 2016 rivalry between Cruz and Rubio -- both freshman senators -- has escalated since the Texas senator described himself as the conservative alternative to the "moderate" Rubio. The two have since duked it out over immigration and national security.

Monday, Cruz accused Rubio of repeating Clinton's mistakes in Libya by supporting a no-fly zone in Syria: "They've demonstrated they've learned nothing," he said.

In a response to Cruz's comments, the Rubio campaign hit Cruz for his support of a measure to scale back government surveillance which Rubio has said made America less safe.

[Isara]

FYI

[gwgn02]

Cruz is just opening up cut after cut on Rubio who’s in a fetal position on the floor now. Go for the knockout Cruz!

[grania]

I recall Cruz supporting Obama on siding with the "protestors" in Kiev, and then supporting arming them to fight Russia.

How about someone comes out and says they don't want to fight wars. Instead they want a military so strong that nobody will mess with us? Someone who was opposed to the these ME wars, even back when GWB went into Iraq?

[Isara]

Presidential Candidates Comparison (Cruz vs. Rubio vs. Trump)

Please click on the pictures at the top of the columns for more details on the ratings of the candidates.

Budget, Spending & Debt
Civil Liberties
Education
Energy & Environment
Foreign Policy & Defense
Free Market
Health Care & Entitlements
Immigration
Moral Issues
Second Amendment
Taxes, Economy & Trade

More at Conservative Review: https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates

Note: If you don't like the ratings for any reason, please contact Conservative Review's Editor-in-Chief, "The Great One," Mark Levin. But I have to warn you that you may get this response from him: "GET OFF THE PHONE, YOU BIG DOPE!"

[House Atreides]

And yet I’ve seen hundreds of Rubio ads on TV but, at most, a mere handful of TV ads promoting Ted Cruz.

[vette6387]

“Note: If you don’t like the ratings for any reason, please contact Conservative Review’s Editor-in-Chief, “The Great One,” Mark Levin. But I have to warn you that you may get this response from him: “GET OFF THE PHONE, YOU BIG DOPE!” “

Like a lot of so-called “conservatives,” we’re learning a lot about Mark Levin too! If he really thinks this chart accurately portrays these three candidates, then he’s THE BIG DOPE!

[Isara]

Trump supported TARP, auto bailout and Porkulus bill, i.e., Trump is for big government and big businesses.

Trump's Record on Free-market Issue: (from the Conservative Review)

Trump has a terrible record on free market issues. The only bright spot is the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing, but this glimmer is countermanded by his repeated support for bailing out Wall Street and the auto industry, and increased stimulus spending. Of particular concern is Trump's belief that the government can use eminent domain powers to seize private property in the name of private economic development. This comes as no surprise, given his support for using eminent domain to profit his own company.

Trump supported the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of London, allowing public authorities to seize private land for economic development by private investors; Trump said, “I happen to agree with [the decision] 100 percent.” (National Review)  This is no surprise given Trump’s attempt to use eminent domain in his own line of work. (Institute for Justice)

Trump supported President Obama’s 2009 stimulus, saying: “The word stimulus is probably not used in its fullest…you know, certain of the things that were given weren't really stimulus. They were pork, as we call it, or they were gifts to certain people. But overall, I think he's [President Obama] doing very well. You do need stimulus and you do have to keep the banks alive.” (CNN) 

Trump supported TARP, saying, "You had to do something to shore up the banks, because ... you would have had a run on every bank." (CNN) 

Trump supported the 2008 auto bailout, saying, “I think the government should stand behind them 100 percent. You cannot lose the auto companies. They’re great. They make wonderful products.” He also said that the federal government could “easily save the companies.” (Daily Caller) 

Trump criticized the Federal Reserve’s intervention in the debt market, saying quantitative easing creates “phony numbers” that mislead the marketplace and “will not ultimately benefit the economy. The dollar will go down in value and inflation will start rearing its ugly head.” (CNBC) 

Donald Trump has a history of using eminent domain to complete business deals. Multiple times Trump has supported the use of government agencies to take possession of homes and businesses for use in his private business plans. Eminent domain seizures are reserved only for public use of property rather than abuse by the government taking property from one individual and giving to another. (Washington Post) 

Donald Trump has sought and received crony capitalist tax breaks for his commercial properties in New York. These tax breaks, and even an abatement, force the property taxes of other property owners to rise at the expense of the connected. Special treatment for one business or industry over another with the tax code conflicts with free market principles. (National Review) 

In 2009, Trump supported Barack Obama's call for limits on the pay of executives. (CNN)

[JayAr36]

And he once had a hangnail.

[TBP]

Cruz is 100 percent right about this.

[Unmarked Package]

In a response to Cruz's comments, the Rubio campaign hit Cruz for his support of a measure to scale back government surveillance which Rubio has said made America less safe.

Ted Cruz spoke with Hugh Hewitt on his radio show yesterday (11/30/2015). Among the topics they discussed, Cruz spoke about his vote for the USA Freedom Act that altered the way U.S. agencies conduct surveillance and gather data, eliminating the bulk collection of telephone metadata of all Americans in favor of improved tools to target the bad guys.

He hit Rubio hard on the provisions of the Gang of Eight amnesty plot Rubio hatched with Chuck Schumer that would have given Obama blanket authority to admit as many Syrian Muslim refugees as he wants without any background checks.

The excerpt of the interview transcript is included below:

Ted Cruz: You are right that when we have a terrorist, when we have a cell phone, we're going to want to track it down and track it down quickly. And the testimony of the intelligence agencies was that the USA Freedom Act increased the ability to target the bad guys, that the old bulk metadata program that swept in your and my information, but it wasn't all-encompassing. It excluded a significant number of phone numbers, and so it made it less effective. And what the intelligence agencies told Congress is the USA Freedom Act would have greater penetration. They would be more likely to stop a terrorist with the tools in the USA Freedom Act. And so facts matter, and those are the facts, and you asked if I agreed that we have a real risk of another terrorist attack in America, and absolutely, we do. And I think that risk is exacerbated by President Obama's indefensible attempts to bring tens of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees to America. And I would note that is a particular irony of Marco Rubio's attack ad directed at me on national security, because one of the elements of the Rubio-Schumer Gang of 8 bill that Marco Rubio authored was to give Barack Obama more authority to admit Syrian refugees. And it would change the law, if it had passed, it would have changed the law so that you no longer require an individualized assessment of a refugee, but rather, it would have given Obama the authority to make a blanket admission of Syrian refugees, and it required no background checks whatsoever. Now you want to talk about a threat to national security, Marco Rubio and Chuck Schumer giving Barack Obama a blank check to admit as many Syrian refugees as he wants with no background checks, that is a profound threat to national security, and that is why Rubio's superPAC is trying to change the subject and attack precisely where they know that Senator Rubio's record is vulnerable, because his amnesty bill weakened our national security.

The Cruz for President campaign also released a new video ad responding to the attack from Rubio:

Congressman Jim Bridenstine: Ted Cruz is ready to be our Commander in Chief (Video)

[brothers4thID]

There is a big difference between supporting a country we have a defensive treaty with, by sending them arms, and putting US personnel into an Islamic civil war.

[grania]

We don’t have a treaty with Ukraine. Besides which, we certainly shouldn’t be supporting a government that toppled a legally elected one.

[brothers4thID]

Yes, we do. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

Also, the “toppling of the democratically elected government” to which you refer was done via ELECTIONS.

[FourPeas]