Two Republicans in the U.S. Senate who have their eyes on the presidency in 2016 -- Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida -- were in the spotlight this month, and it was enough to draw presidential-suitability comparisons.
Certainly there are other Republicans looking at 2016 who arent in the Senate, but few command such an edge in current national affairs as these two.
In fact, Rubio edged Paul in two important areas in recent weeks.
Both Rubio and Paul offered responses to Obamas State of the Union address. Conservative pundits gushed over Rubios response. I think the big story is going to be Marco Rubios response, Sean Hannity said on FOX News. I thought it was the best response to a State of the Union address Ive ever seen. And its very different competing visions, and in the focus group, the people like overwhelmingly Marco Rubios vision for the future of the country.
Michael Reagan invoked his father -- conservative icon Ronald Reagan -- in his thoughts on Rubios speech. Marco Rubio would make my father proud, he posted on Twitter.
Rubio was even able to turn around his biggest misstep in the speech -- and certainly the most memorable part of it -- when he paused to take a drink from a bottle of water. Shortly after the speech, Rubio posted a photo of the water bottle on Twitter and even supplied donors with water bottles if they contributed to Reclaim America, a PAC with ties to the Florida senator.
The fundraising idea proved successful. The PAC raised more than $160,000 from 5,000-plus people. Toward the end of February, when on a tour of the Holy Land, Rubio even shared a toast of water bottles with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Rubio was actually able to score political points off of a flub, a feat not many politicians can boast.
While Rubio won accolades from Republican lions like Ralph Reed and Newt Gingrich and others, the conservative talking heads generally ignored Pauls response to Obama, which was sponsored by the Tea Party Express. None of the cable stations aired Pauls speech which ran after 11 p.m. on the East Coast.
Besides making more of a splash than Paul in their responses to Obama, Rubio also edged his potential rival on their handling of Obamas nomination of former U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., to head the Defense Department.
Rubio was consistently opposed to Hagels nomination. The senator from Florida threatened to put a hold on the nomination and attacked Hagel, who served as a Republican in the Senate before Rubio was elected in 2010, as bad for Israel and for democracy movements in Latin America including Cuba. Rubio also went after Hagels character, questioning his judgment and temperament. Rubio opposed Hagels nomination when it went to the Senate floor on Tuesday and backed efforts to continue the debate over the nomination.
Paul, on the other hand, was less consistent. On Feb. 14, when Senate Democrats unsuccessfully tried to end debate on the Hagel nomination, Paul voted with other Republicans to continue it.
"I tend to believe that the president should be entitled to some leeway on his nominees. That is why I voted in favor of Senator John Kerry, with whom I largely disagree on foreign policy, to serve as secretary of state, Paul said on Feb. 14. "That is also why I voted to not end debate on the Hagel nomination. I do not believe Senator Hagel has adequately explained his activities and their financing since he left the Senate, and I believe this criteria is especially important when dealing with the revolving door between government and the private sector."
Later in the month, when Democrats appealed to enough Republicans to invoke cloture on the Hagel nomination, Paul stood with most other Republican senators in opposing the motion. But, when Hagels nomination finally hit the Senate floor on Tuesday, Paul was one of only four Republicans to back it. Paul was the only senator to vote to filibuster Hagel and then turn around and vote for his confirmation.
While Paul insisted he backed the filibuster effort to get more information on Hagel, the senator from Kentucky ended up leaving several groups in the Republican coalition unhappy. Paleo-conservatives and libertarians who want a less active foreign policy and backed Pauls father -- former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul -- for the presidency in 2008 and 2012 are not happy that Rand Paul joined the filibuster effort against Hagel who was a sharp critic of George W. Bushs handling of Iraq. Republicans who back a more active foreign policy, who warmed up to Rand Paul when he backed the filibuster, are now cooling off again to the Kentucky senator.
Paul fell into the same trap that plagued John Kerry during his presidential bid back in 2004. While there are some exceptions -- Obama, John F. Kennnedy and Warren Harding -- presidents generally do not emerge from the Senate. Its easy to get tangled up in being for something before being against it like Kerry or, in Pauls case, being against something before being for it. If Paul enters the Republican primaries in 2016, his rivals will be more than happy to paint him as inconsistent based on his Hagel votes.
While Rand Paul twisted himself in knots over Hagel and his Tea Party Express speech was largely ignored, Rubio managed to dodge a bullet on his Republican response to Obama and stayed consistent on the Hagel nomination. Score this early round for Rubio over Paul.
Tallahassee political writer Jeff Henderson wrote this analysis exclusively for Sunshine State News.
