Lee better than Cruz? Why?

[Ecolibertarian]

I, like many of us, consider Rand Paul to be our most consistently libertarian senator, despite his differences with his father.


When it comes to second place, the two most obvious names are Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. Personally, I always thought Cruz and Lee were pretty similar from a policy perspective. But Lee seems to get more love from RPF members.


I kind of absorbed and went along with that sentiment, mostly because I don't want Cruz running against Rand in 2016. But I started to wonder this morning if there were good substantive reasons to prefer Lee.


In the past year, Cruz and Paul have distinguished themselves from one another mostly on foreign policy; Cruz has articulated a more interventionist foreign policy vision than Paul. Lee, on the other hand, isn't positioning himself for a presidential run, and hasn't been as outspoken.


So is the preference for Lee over Cruz mostly that the former wins by default as Cruz flunks on foreign policy? Do we think that Lee is less of a hawk, and is there much basis for that? Outside of foreign policy, are the two more or less identical?

[Original_Intent]

I don't know that much about Cruz, but I was on a telephone town hall with Mike Lee last night. He doesn't play to the crowd, which I like. One caller asked him why he continues to be such a "Tea Party" senator when most of his voters were more "traditional GOP". He made a great response about how there were some values that were not conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican, but that were American principles and then he explained things like allowing people to start businesses and various other activities that the government had no authority to meddle in.

[Brett85]

Cruz voted for an NDAA bill that gave weapons to the Syrian rebels. Lee voted against it. That's one difference.

http://www.dailypaul.com/320003/ted-cruz-member-of-the-senate-armed-services-committee-passed-the-ndaa-which-included

[thoughtomator]

Lee is less bloodthirsty, and is not married into Goldman Sachs.

[TheTyke]

Cruz actually has a slightly better rating than Lee on the Freedom Index (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/) but Lee always came across as more of an ally... he beat an incumbent establishment senator in convention, and as far as I know has always been supportive of Rand and liberty groups like CFL, YAL etc. Contrast that to Cruz, who took shots at Rand, mischaracterized his foreign policy, and is positioned to split his vote for the establishment in 2016. Cruz was in the Bush administration, and his wife was a CFR member (globalists) who also works for Goldman Sachs (bailout-recipients who were in the top 5 donors to Obama, McCain, McConnell and... Ted Cruz)

I've tried hard to give Cruz the benefit of the doubt, because his votes have been excellent and he's helped us a few times. But opposition literally couldn't have positioned an opponent better to do damage to us if they tried, and his associations make me very cautious. Time will reveal whose side he's on...

[RandallFan]

Lee is a Mormon. Jeff Flake, Huntsman, Romney and others ruined their brand.

Cruz would be more formidible because he is a Southern Baptist.

[Valli6]

Cruz has is just an establishment republican that's been tip-toeing around, so as to appear "tea party".
Beloved by the Bushs, it was George W that made Cruz Texas' attorney general, and Cruz's wife Heidi, works for Goldman Sachs. Furthermore Cruz talks like a phony - he can't seem to lose the smug jerk attitude whenever he speaks.

Lee is just more genuine, honest, believable.

[presence]

Cruz actually has a slightly better rating than Lee on the Freedom Index (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/)

That's not true

Lee 91% Free
http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=L000577

Cruz 90% Free
http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=C001098

If you compare just 2013-2014 then Lee wins 93% to 90%

[Ecolibertarian]

Cruz voted for an NDAA bill that gave weapons to the Syrian rebels. Lee voted against it. That's one difference.http://www.dailypaul.com/320003/ted-cruz-member-of-the-senate-armed-services-committee-passed-the-ndaa-which-includedInteresting. That sounds like a substantive, even significant, point of difference. This is the sort of answer I was looking for.

[Ecolibertarian]

Cruz actually has a slightly better rating than Lee on the Freedom Index (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/) but Lee always came across as more of an ally... he beat an incumbent establishment senator in convention, and as far as I know has always been supportive of Rand and liberty groups like CFL, YAL etc. Contrast that to Cruz, who took shots at Rand, mischaracterized his foreign policy, and is positioned to split his vote for the establishment in 2016. Cruz was in the Bush administration, and his wife was a CFR member (globalists) who also works for Goldman Sachs (bailout-recipients who were in the top 5 donors to Obama, McCain, McConnell and... Ted Cruz)I've tried hard to give Cruz the benefit of the doubt, because his votes have been excellent and he's helped us a few times. But opposition literally couldn't have positioned an opponent better to do damage to us if they tried, and his associations make me very cautious. Time will reveal whose side he's on...As someone who has had a lot of interactions with CFR and its members, I can tell you that the assumption of "globalist" sympathies among people involved with the Council is grossly off-base. There is a great degree of diversity, and even argument, within CFR, about the proper construction of "national interests," "security," and even how to secure given end states. Having said that, Cruz's representations of Rand's foreign policy vision were far from honest and meaningful engagement. Not a surprise, but pissed me off.

[TaftFan]

As someone who has had a lot of interactions with CFR and its members, I can tell you that the assumption of "globalist" sympathies among people involved with the Council is grossly off-base. There is a great degree of diversity, and even argument, within CFR, about the proper construction of "national interests," "security," and even how to secure given end states. Having said that, Cruz's representations of Rand's foreign policy vision were far from honest and meaningful engagement. Not a surprise, but pissed me off.

Cruz's wife is not in the CFR anymore for a reason. Cruz called the CFR a "pit of vipers" at one point.

There is much stupidity in the liberty movement when it comes to these organizations. Being members or going to their meetings doesn't mean they are plotting world government. I mean, Peter Thiel and Mark Sanford have both attended Bilderberg meetings. Basically, these organizations are for bigwigs to hang out and discuss policy.

[thoughtomator]

Interesting. That sounds like a substantive, even significant, point of difference. This is the sort of answer I was looking for.

Dunno about you but I find Cruz' Goldman Sachs tie to be extremely significant, to the point of deal-breaking. Even if you assume he's not going to be their handmaiden straight out, the conflict of interest is too serious to ignore. Goldman Sachs is the #1 beneficiary of all the wealth-stripping that the feds and the Fed have been doing.

[thoughtomator]

As someone who has had a lot of interactions with CFR and its members, I can tell you that the assumption of "globalist" sympathies among people involved with the Council is grossly off-base. There is a great degree of diversity, and even argument, within CFR, about the proper construction of "national interests," "security," and even how to secure given end states. Having said that, Cruz's representations of Rand's foreign policy vision were far from honest and meaningful engagement. Not a surprise, but pissed me off.

Show me one even slightly non-interventionist viewpoint published on a CFR outlet. They do have their own publications... let me get you started: http://www.cfr.org/

Find one single example and I'll grant that there may be an iota of non-globalism in the mix.

[William Tell]

Mike Lee seems like an earnest guy, he is not an attention whore, Ted Cruz is a slimy creature of politics.

[Ecolibertarian]

Show me one even slightly non-interventionist viewpoint published on a CFR outlet. They do have their own publications... let me get you started: http://www.cfr.org/Find one single example and I'll grant that there may be an iota of non-globalism in the mix.Well, first thing that comes to mind is that even Haass, who is far from a dogmatic non-interventionist made some memorable comments at a Council panel event a few months ago. Let me see if I can hunt it down.

EDIT: Here we go. See around 29:00 on. Shows positions of CFR members cannot be simplified down to hawk/dove. http://www.cfr.org/politics-and-strategy/crimea-china-challenges-risk-management/p32633

Haass, as I said, is certainly someone who believes that the United States has vital security interests in South and East Asia that demand its engagement. Here are views at odds with his belief that the U.S. should concern itself with Syria.

http://www.cfr.org/syria/west-must-not-intervene-militarily-syria/p27338
http://www.cfr.org/syria/we-intervene-syria-our-peril/p27260

[WD-NY]

Well, first thing that comes to mind is that even Haass, who is far from a dogmatic non-interventionist made some memorable comments at a Council panel event a few months ago. Let me see if I can hunt it down.

EDIT: Here we go. See around 29:00 on. Shows positions of CFR members cannot be simplified down to hawk/dove. http://www.cfr.org/politics-and-strategy/crimea-china-challenges-risk-management/p32633

Haass, as I said, is certainly someone who believes that the United States has vital security interests in South and East Asia that demand its engagement. Here are views at odds with his belief that the U.S. should concern itself with Syria.

http://www.cfr.org/syria/west-must-not-intervene-militarily-syria/p27338
http://www.cfr.org/syria/we-intervene-syria-our-peril/p27260

Yep, was just going to say that none other than the PRESIDENT of the CFR (re: Richard Haass) lead the charge against war with Libya/Qaddafi.

Not only did he publish a bunch of opeds like the one copied below, he also went on pretty much every news show and made the neocons/libs sound crazy.

Without Haass, Rand's efforts would've all been for naught imo bc Haass legitimized Rand's position w/ MSMers and bc the MSM couldn't Alinsky/marginalize him like they can Rand.

http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya-too-much-too-late/p24444

Those advocating the intervention emphasize what they see as its moral underpinning — if not necessity. But this requires bringing about something morally preferable in Libya at a cost commensurate with interests.

Alas, there is little reason to be confident the opposition will be able to constitute a benign, national alternative. It could just as easily be tribal-based, radical, localized — or some combination of all of these. A Libya that is at war with itself for years, or that either welcomes or becomes too weak to resist groups like Al Qaida, is not something worth fighting for.

There are also strong competing claims on morality. What about asking young American men and women in uniform to put their lives at risk for interests that are less than vital? For outcomes that are less than sure to be an improvement over what now exists?

Or what about committing the United States to another costly foreign intervention at a moment we owe it to ourselves — not to mention future generations — to get our economic and military houses in order so we can meet our obligations at home and be prepared to meet true wars of necessity (North Korea for one) if and when they arise?

At the end of the day, though, the Libyan intervention is more than anything about the role of the United States in the world. The United States cannot and should not intervene in every internal dispute where bad or even evil is on display.

It is not simply that we lack the resources, which we do. It is that we lack the ability to right every wrong, and that not every situation has within it a solution.

It was John Quincy Adams who, some two centuries ago, warned that the United States should not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. He was right then. He is no less right today.

[thoughtomator]

Well, first thing that comes to mind is that even Haass, who is far from a dogmatic non-interventionist made some memorable comments at a Council panel event a few months ago. Let me see if I can hunt it down.

EDIT: Here we go. See around 29:00 on. Shows positions of CFR members cannot be simplified down to hawk/dove. http://www.cfr.org/politics-and-strategy/crimea-china-challenges-risk-management/p32633

Haass, as I said, is certainly someone who believes that the United States has vital security interests in South and East Asia that demand its engagement. Here are views at odds with his belief that the U.S. should concern itself with Syria.

http://www.cfr.org/syria/west-must-not-intervene-militarily-syria/p27338
http://www.cfr.org/syria/we-intervene-syria-our-peril/p27260

As far as the video goes, at 29:00 they're talking about Ukraine like it's their own personal possession and that they have the right to determine what the future of the country is.

I'm not seeing any non-interventionism there - simply a weighing of various levels of interventionist options.

An actual non-interventionist would be adhering to some principle, such as the non-aggression principle, or the MYOB principle.

So we got one example of non-interventionism (from an "adjunct" fellow - i.e. not a core CFR member) and it appears he was no longer permitted to publish in CFR's journal immediately after writing said article. Also, further research into him shows that he's not actually non-interventionist on principle but advocates specifically a different strategy in the case of jihadism.

None of these people are non-interventionist, they merely have diversity of opinion on how to best be interventionist.

[thoughtomator]

Yep, was just going to say that none other than the PRESIDENT of the CFR (re: Richard Haass) lead the charge against war with Libya/Qaddafi.

Not only did he publish a bunch of opeds like the one copied below, he also went on pretty much every news show and made the neocons/libs sound crazy.

Without Haass, Rand's efforts would've all been for naught imo bc Haass legitimized Rand's position w/ MSMers and bc the MSM couldn't Alinsky/marginalize him like they can Rand.

http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya-too-much-too-late/p24444

I like Haass' recent comments, but they're hard to trust in light of his highly interventionist previous work, such as this one: http://www.cfr.org/grand-strategy/opportunity/p8120 or this very very disturbing one: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2006/02/21/2003294021

I can see paths to go from uber-interventionist to non-interventionist over 8 years, but I need to see evidence of the intermediate steps to believe that what we see now is not some sort of deception. That kind of change of policy would be like George W. Bush coming out and saying Iraq War II was a huge mistake.

How did Haass go from "give up your sovereignty" to non-intervention? It often takes a life-changing event for such a radical shift.

[twomp]

Every time I hear Ted Cruz speak, I feel the need to check my wallet to see if it's still there.

[Vanguard101]

Lee is only better because he isn't considering a run for president. Cruz will be attacked because his wife is successful

[Ecolibertarian]

As far as the video goes, at 29:00 they're talking about Ukraine like it's their own personal possession and that they have the right to determine what the future of the country is.

I'm not seeing any non-interventionism there - simply a weighing of various levels of interventionist options.

An actual non-interventionist would be adhering to some principle, such as the non-aggression principle, or the MYOB principle.

So we got one example of non-interventionism (from an "adjunct" fellow - i.e. not a core CFR member) and it appears he was no longer permitted to publish in CFR's journal immediately after writing said article. Also, further research into him shows that he's not actually non-interventionist on principle but advocates specifically a different strategy in the case of jihadism.

None of these people are non-interventionist, they merely have diversity of opinion on how to best be interventionist.

You didn't ask for a list of committed, doctrinaire non-interventionists at CFR. You asked for "one even slightly non-interventionist viewpoint published on a CFR outlet."

[thoughtomator]

You didn't ask for a list of committed, doctrinaire non-interventionists at CFR. You asked for "one even slightly non-interventionist viewpoint published on a CFR outlet."

Correct, and I do acknowledge that I got a "slightly non-interventionist viewpoint". However, it is not terribly convincing that there is any actual strain of non-interventionism represented at CFR.

[ctiger2]

To me Cruz = Lee. Both headed directly to Israel after they won office. Zionists.

Cruz is just a more outspoken one. The thing that's funny about Cruz, if you look closely, you can see him laughing under his breath as he panders to the crowd. He knows exactly what he's doing and it's hilarious for him.

[Matt Collins]

I have found a lot more in agreement with Lee than Cruz.... especially when it comes to foreign policy.

[Ecolibertarian]

Dunno if anyone else is interested, but I used OpenCongress.com's vote comparison tool to generate a list that "includes all roll calls on passage in the senate involving both members, during the 113th congress." I've highlighted opposing votes. All told, "in the 113th congress, Ted Cruz (http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/412573_Ted_Cruz) and Mike Lee (http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/412495_Mike_Lee) have voted together on 473 of 553 roll call votes in which neither abstained, representing a voting similarity of 86%."

http://s18.postimg.org/9y92y57vp/Lee_Cruz_comparison.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/9y92y57vp/)

Links to the passage roll calls on which Cruz and Lee voted differently:

H.R. 803 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/hr803-113/show
H.R. 3370 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/hr3370-113/show
S. 1086 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/s1086-113/show
H.R. 527 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/hr527-113/show
H.R. 1911 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/hr1911-113/show

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Senator Lee didn't go to a convention of persecuted Christians and tell them to all go fuck themselves.

[Ender]

Mike Lee seems like an earnest guy, he is not an attention whore, Ted Cruz is a slimy creature of politics.

My opinion as well.