CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA - It seems as though the strategic, longstanding, occasionally-endangered nonaggression pact between the top candidates in the Republican race has well and truly expired. As GOP frontrunner
Advertisement
Cruz won't just be sparring with Trump, of course. He and third-place Marco Rubio are likely to go at it again on a number of fronts, including immigration, taxes (Rubio and Ben Carson -- whose campaign appears to be disintegrating -- have ramped up attacks on what they and many economists call Cruz's proposed European-style "Value Added Tax" or VAT), and perhaps Cap and Trade. But don't the two conservative Senate freshmen oppose the latter carbon emissions scheme? Yes, but a video surfaced this week -- quickly promoted by the Cruz,
Advertisement
Several outlets have reported on Rubio's nuanced, and potentially problematic, stance on the issue at the time -- he was working to oppose an initiative laid out by his own party's governor, a risky proposition as a member of leadership, without trashing said governor's intentions. He was also grappling with what seemed to be an unstoppable, bipartisan march toward cap and trade policies at the time (with Obama, Crist, McCain and Palin all in favor). But those who were there for the fight say Rubio led a savvy, effective and successful campaign to gut and defeat cap and trade in Florida. These accounts are fortified by Rubio's contemporaneous denunciations of government mandates and warnings that effective carbon taxes would harm average Americans by sharply increasing utility bills. Rubio critics may question some of the other ideas he floated in this 2007 Miami Herald piece, which is totally legitimate. They may also ask whether Rubio can credibly advance a "poison pill" defense after refusing to accept a similar explanation from Ted Cruz on immigration reform. The difference on that score is that Rubio explicitly stated his opposition to coercive cap and trade mandates during his Florida battle. During the Gang of Eight fight, however, Cruz -- who fought to defeat Rubio's bad bill --
Advertisement
Cruz may also come under fire from rivals on two bogus issues: (1) The New York Times reported yesterday that Cruz failed to properly disclosed a loan from Goldman Sachs (where the then-candidate's wife worked) during his 2012 Senate race. Though Cruz acknowledges he may have inadvertently reported it incorrectly, there was nothing special or unusual about the loan, which was publicly disclosed prior to the primary and general elections he won. Not much "there" there. (2) Someone may try to knock Cruz on a supposed "flip-flop" on Ethanol subsidies, a boondoggle with heavy parochial support in Iowa. Yes, Cruz's tone and tactics in opposing the Renewable Fuel Standard have shifted a bit, but his opposition has been steadfast. It's a non-story, for reasons
Advertisement
By the way, there will be an "undercard" forum this evening, among Carly Fiorina (who's been demoted based on polling rules), Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum. Rand Paul -- who also got the boot under the rules -- is refusing to participate, while lobbying to be included in the primetime debate based on polling released after the established deadline. Paul was able to sway CNN with similar arguments last month, but his pleas appear to be falling on deaf ears this time. For what it's worth, I personally think having his perspective represented on stage is valuable to the party, and suspect he has more national appeal than someone like John Kasich, but it doesn't appear that he's being unfairly shafted. If he'd manage to attract more support over the course of many months and multiple debates, this wouldn't be a problem for him. In light of the winnowed field, the seven remaining candidates on the main stage will have more time to flesh out ideas and hash out differences. For that reason -- in addition to the unobtrusive professionalism exhibited by Fox Business' moderators in Milwaukee -- tonight is shaping up to be a substantive, fiery and memorable exchange. I'll leave you with the latest ads from the sputtering world of Jeb Bush -- one (rightfully) attacking a particularly odious Trump performance, and the other reprising the
Advertisement
Will he actually land any blows against The Donald this time? And would it make any difference at all if he did? And why on earth did his SuperPAC decide to feature a conspiracy nut in that anti-Rubio ad? Look at this, then repeat after me, money does not "buy elections:"
Bush and allies have now spent nearly $50M in ads, including $23M in NH and $10M in IA https://t.co/7R4Xc61069 pic.twitter.com/jXGKwsliqC
— Mark Murray (@mmurraypolitics) January 5, 2016
Join the conversation as a VIP Member