Posted on 10/01/2015 6:44:18 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Among the many turbulent moments that Donald Trump contributed to the much-vaunted Republican-primary debate on September 16, one in particular stood out. “I,” Trump griped after Marco Rubio delivered a particularly withering put-down, “am not sitting in the United States Senate with, by the way, the worst voting record there is today . . . I’m a businessman. I am doing business transactions.”
At the time, Trump intended this line as a panicked explanation for his ignorance of foreign affairs. But, in the weeks that have followed, he has begun to use it as a cudgel. In the last week alone, he has suggested caustically that Rubio, “has the worst voting record in the United States Senate” (Morning Joe); “has the worst attendance rating in the U.S. Senate” (a South Carolina speech); has “the No. 1 worst attendance record” (the same speech); “has worst voting record in Senate” (Twitter); has the “worst attendance record in Senate- rarely there to vote on a bill!” (also Twitter); and — I imagine you’re getting the picture by now — is “a lightweight senator with the worst voting record in Senate. Lazy!” (Twitter once again). At this rate, it cannot be long before it makes it into his routine presentation on the stump.
The million dollar question: “Is the claim true”? Does Rubio in fact have “the worst voting record in the Senate”? The answer is not quite, no. Rubio’s attendance has certainly been poor — especially this year, as he runs for president. But the overall prize for playing hooky goes not to the junior senator from Florida, but to Ted Cruz, a man whom Trump has notably declined to attack. “If we look at career truancy,” PolitiFact reported on September 17, “Cruz has a worse attendance record than Rubio.” More importantly, perhaps, Cruz has missed votes that actually mattered.
That Trump has focused in on Rubio rather than Cruz is, of course, his prerogative. Like everybody else, he is free to cast his opprobrium in whichever direction he sees fit. Perhaps he thinks that it is Rubio and not Cruz who poses the bigger threat to his White House aspirations, and that Rubio is thus the most deserving of his ire? Perhaps he considers that he and Cruz are in a de facto truce of sorts, and that it would therefore be impolite to make hay out of Cruz’s many absences? Perhaps, as PolitiFact suggests, Trump was in fact referring not to career averages, but to this year’s attendance records alone. Either way, I wonder if somebody can answer a question for me: Why exactly does any of this matter? Clearly Trump believes that “you haven’t been voting in the Senate enough” is a reasonably potent critique. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t be leveling it over and over again. But do GOP primary voters feel the same way? Far more interesting to me than how many minor votes Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz have missed since they were elected is what they have done while they’ve been in Washington. With the exception of his many sharp-elbowed references to the Gang of Eight bill, Trump has limited his criticism of Rubio’s record to quantity and not to quality. That’s notable.
Why? Well, because it tells us that Trump understands that he is not on solid enough ideological ground to go after his opponents’ voting records per se. Once you put the immigration disaster to one side, Marco Rubio actually has a remarkably conservative voting history — the sort of history that Trump would presumably love to be able to point to. Don’t believe me? Just ask the trackers. In 2012, at the end of his first two years in office, Rubio was given a “100 percent” rating by the American Conservative Union — an honor that went to only eight percent of his Senate colleagues. A couple of years later, after the immigration contretemps had played out in full, the ACU downgraded him to “just” 98 percent. Heritage Action has been similarly impressed. At present, Rubio enjoys a 92 percent positive score from the outfit, which is not only dramatically better than the average Republican senator (61 percent), but better also than all but one of Rubio’s fellow candidates for president. (That “one,” as you might imagine, is Ted Cruz.)
Presumably, there will be some conservatives who consider that the above information does not so much let Rubio off the hook as make an excellent case for the unflappability of Ted Cruz. And perhaps it does! Cruz, after all, did not make a mistake on immigration, and, from some rightward-leaning perspectives at least, has a pretty much perfect record on all other fronts as well. What it does not do, however, is to suggest that Rubio is a “moderate” or that Donald Trump is his superior in any way — both of which contentions are implied in Trump’s critique. Au contraire: Over the last five years, Rubio has amassed a consistently conservative record that has on its face a single major blot — a blot, it should be said, which Rubio now claims to regret. Donald Trump, by contrast, has compiled a long and ugly history as a cynical “foot in both camps” moderate, to which he has now added six months of embarrassingly ersatz “conservatism.” If we are to be encouraged to more closely examine the political records on offer, whose do we think will come out ahead?
— Charles C. W. Cooke is a staff writer at National Review and the author of The Conservatarian Manifesto.
Personally, I don’t care what he says about Marco Rubio except if he endorses him or something. There is absolutely no way I will ever vote for Rubio for anything. I’m not ready to give this country back to Mexico and/or Cuba anytime soon.
Rubio’s missing a lot of votes is an important issue. The one thing he had going for him was that he had a conservative voting record in the US senate, except for his blind spot about the invasion of the US. If he doesn’t vote almost always, how can that record be trusted?
W8uld Rubio secure the border?
Rubio should give back his salary from the Senate if he isn’t going to do his job.
If his “attacks” on Rubio’s record are accurate, why not? Commenting on Carly’s looks didn’t hurt him. He’s said or done very little that hasn’t helped him. The more outrageous he is (outrageous meaning how the GOPe considers it) the better his numbers.
THAT is the magic of Trump
We've all been saying the same thing using different words for a couple of months now.
Rubio missed the very important vote on Planned Parenthood defunding. Okay Cooke, use that moment of cowardice to make Rubio look good, and Trump look bad.
I’d use National Review as fishwrap, except I don’t subscribe anymore.
It is fun however to go read the blistering comment section.
Senator Omugabe didn’t vote much either. It’s too revealing. Rubio has been trying hard for a long time to position himself as the RINO version.
Looks like Rubio set out to prove Trump right by making sure he missed the PP vote. What a wuss!
National Review idiot trying to cut down Cruz because Cruz will never be GOPe. Trump and Cruz will be endlessly maligned by establishment types this next year.
‘At the time, Trump intended this line as a panicked explanation for his ignorance of foreign affairs.’
What a piece of steaming manure. The Trump hatred is sapping these pundits’ IQ points like too much choom sapped Obama’s.
Rubio is weak on defense
Rubio’s missing a lot of votes is an important issue.
************
Agree. This is not a trivial matter at all. It speaks to responsibility, principles, and doing your job. And not in a good way.
...suck up to the GOPe.
Rubio’s Corker vote is enough to disqualify him for President.
Rubio just missed the Iran vote.
I think he’s doing it in purpose, to avoid committing himself.
Trump’s right - if he can go see hotel sites in between campaigning, Rubio can schedule his stops around when the votes are.
Is Rand Paul and Cruz missing all their votes as well?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
