Marco Rubio went into Thursday night’s debate in South Carolina with a nagging problem. The Florida senator has been sitting around third place in the polls, including in Iowa and New Hampshire, for weeks, while Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have battled it out at the top. Without some kind of intervention, it seemed possible Rubio could fade away.
That would have happened if Rubio had stumbled badly Thursday in North Charleston—unlikely, given his natural political skills and track record. A top-level turn from Rubio, where he truly dominated the stage, might have boosted him significantly in New Hampshire and in national polls. That was also unlikely, given the presence of other strong-willed candidates on the stage. Instead, Rubio gave what he has in every debate this cycle: a solid, at times excellent, performance that showed both why he’s the best among the establishment-acceptable candidates and why he’s struggled to break out so far in the campaign.
Rubio continued to demonstrate Thursday that he has the ability to speak fluidly about policy issues. For instance, he ably critiqued Ted Cruz’s proposal for a value-added tax as an added tax on consumers that could be raised, along with the income tax, by future liberal politicians. Rubio also shifted his tone and focus to reflect more of the anger and frustration expressed by GOP primary voters, declaring Hillary Clinton “unqualified” to be commander-in-chief because of the obfuscation on the Benghazi terrorist attack and offering a stirring defense of the Second Amendment while declaring Barack Obama likely wants to confiscate all legally owned firearms in America. It was new and different from the sunniness he’s projected in the past, yet Rubio made it work.
But there were plenty of missteps too, not ending with Rubio’s penchant for stumbling over planned lines of attack (he seems to talk too fast for his own good). Most of these were manifested as missed opportunities. An early exchange with Chris Christie allowed Rubio to restate many of the criticisms he and a supporting super PAC have made about the New Jersey governor’s more liberal positions or actions, including Christie’s support for Sonia Sotomayor’s appointment to the Supreme Court. When Christie responded, he flat-out denied having supported Sotomayor, despite having issued a statement in 2009 saying, “I support her appointment to the Supreme Court.” Instead of pushing back with that devastating quotation, Rubio let Christie’s denial slide.
One exchange, near the end of the debate, perfectly encapsulates both the promise and peril of Rubio’s debate performances. After escaping the immigration issue for the first two hours of the debate, he faced a tough question about the Gang of Eight immigration bill he helped author in 2013. Moderator Maria Bartiromo questioned Rubio about why the United States should be issuing more green cards to immigrants, as proposed in the Gang’s bill.
“Why are you so interested in opening up borders for foreigners when American workers have a hard enough time finding work?” Bartiromo asked.
Rubio began by arguing that the “issue” of immigration has changed from what it had been for three decades, an economic issue, to one of national security. “First and foremost, this issue has to be now, more than anything else, about keeping America safe,” Rubio said. Radical jihadists groups, he said, are now exploiting the green card program and a porous border-control regime. “When I’m president, if we do not know who you are or why you are coming, you are not going to get into the United States of America,” Rubio said.
“So your thinking has changed?” Bartiromo pressed.
“The issue is a dramatically different issue than it was 24 months ago,” Rubio said. “24 months ago, 36 months ago, we did not have a group of radical crazies named ISIS who were burning people in cages and recruiting people to enter our country legally.”
It was a baffling explanation. Rubio changed his mind about immigration priorities and issuing green cards for foreign workers…after the rise of ISIS? It doesn’t square with Rubio’s past reason for moving away from the Gang of Eight bill, which was supposedly that reform is politically impossible unless border security is addressed first. It also suggests Rubio believes the threat from radical terrorists entering the country through legal means has only become significant since the rise of ISIS in the last few years, as if al Qaeda and its various offshoots did not also pose threats. The answer was a mess, and Ted Cruz was more than ready.
“Radical Islamic terrorism was not invented 24 months ago,” said Cruz. “24 months ago we had al Qaeda, we had Boko Haram, we had Hamas, we had Hezbollah. We had Iran putting operatives in South America and Central America.” The Texas senator said that’s why he worked to stop the Gang of Eight bill, “because border security is national security.”
It was a devastating moment, one that squeezed Rubio on both his biggest weakness (immigration) and his biggest strength (national security). But as quickly as Cruz’s takedown happened, Rubio shot back with one of his own.
“Ted Cruz, you used to say you supported doubling the number of green cards. Now you say you’re against it,” Rubio began. “You used to support a 500 percent increase in the number of guest-workers. Now you say that you’re against it. You used to support legalizing people that were here illegally. Now you say you’re against it. You used to say that you were in favor of birthright citizenship. Now you say that you are against it.”
Rubio expanded his offensive beyond immigration with a deftly deployed first-person account. “I saw you on the Senate floor flip your vote on crop insurance because they told you it would help you in Iowa,” he said. “And last week we all saw you flip your vote on ethanol in Iowa for the same reason. That is not consistent conservatism.” Rubio continued the attack as his opponent tried to get a word in, calling out Cruz for supporting Edward Snowden and voting against defense spending alongside Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul.
“I appreciate you dumping your opposition research folder on the debate stage,” Cruz said. “No, it’s your record,” Rubio said. It was a good enough recovery for Rubio that his campaign felt confident enough to clip the entire video, including the problematic answer on immigration.
What do Republicans in Iowa, New Hampshire, and beyond take away from Rubio’s routine at the debates? Is he the competent conservative candidate who will finally convince enough non-Trump, non-Cruz supporters to coalescing around him? Or will he be held back by tactical mistakes and fundamental weaknesses—chiefly immigration—that place him in perpetual third place?
In just a few short weeks, we’ll start to have a definitive answer.
