Rubio Hammers Cruz on National Security, Christie on Common Core

Sen. Marco Rubio is stepping up his attacks on Ted Cruz and Chris Christie, signaling he sees them as his main competition in emerging as the the alternative to Trump. He attacks Cruz as soft on national security, and Christie for having once supported the Common Core among other liberal ideas: ‘He has voted for and supported a containment budget that would reduce national security. I think we need to rebuild the U.S. military,’  Mr. Rubio told CNN. ‘He is in favor of weakening our intelligence programs. I am in favor of strengthening and expanding them.’ Mr. Rubio’s stops in Iowa Tuesday

Just Who Is ISIS Really Featuring in Recruiting Videos?

There was a Democrat debate over the weekend. Did you notice? Many pundits commented on the fact that the timing of the debate — competing with the newest Star Wars movie and the last weekend of Christmas shopping — seemed designed to keep viewership low and to protect Hillary Clinton’s status as the Democrat front runner. Not surprisingly, Saturday’s debate had the lowest ratings of any debate — Democrat or Republican — held in 2015. The candidates talked a lot about GOP front runner Donald Trump. In fact, it was a comment about Trump that got most of the post-debate

Chris Christie’s Lack of Courage on Religious Liberty

Chris Christie appeared to get a boomlet from the Nevada debate this week. Why? For a hawkish foreign policy posture about Russians violating his proposed no-fly zone in Syria. Here’s some love from WaPo‘s Chris Cillizza, for example, on why Christie was a winner on Tuesday: Chris Christie: The New Jersey governor had one goal in this debate: distinguish himself from the likes of Cruz and Rubio as someone who has never spent any time in Washington. He did so — repeatedly and successfully. He effectively injected himself into an extended back and forth between Cruz and Rubio on the NSA to

On the Tenth Day Before Christmas, the CNN Debate Gave to Me…

The most keenly interesting element of the CNN GOP presidential debate was the clear split in sentiment among the candidates on how to handle the most pressing national security problem America confronts. They split between the tough doves, Cruz and Trump, massively leading in the polls, and five militant hawks, Bush, Rubio, Christie, Kasich, and Fiorina, who are lagging. And Dr. Carson, who talks like a dove but promises hawkish policy. Call him a partridge. Most commentators focused on the social dynamics, such as Donald Trump’s very gallant praise for his most potent rival, Ted Cruz, as well as for

Who Won The Debate? The Voters Did. Also These 3 Contenders.

I wanted to write a “winners/losers” post. That was my initial intention. But I didn’t come away from tonight’s debate thinking one candidate beat up on another. I didn’t end up caring about winners or losers. Instead, I enjoyed the first serious, substantive debate on foreign policy of the 2016 election cycle. It was needed. It was critical. And it set the stage for major policy distinctions between the eventual Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton in the general election. We have a real challenge ahead of us in the war on radical Islamic terrorism. How exactly will we wage that war?

Rubio Pivots to Take Aim at Cruz

With 55 days remaining until the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucus begins to help sort out front-runners from also-rans, Senator Marco Rubio has signaled a significant shift in his campaign approach and begun trading paint with the now-surging Senator Ted Cruz. A Sunday, December 6, New York Times piece unpacks the new Rubio strategy, designed to blunt surging Cruz momentum both in Iowa and in other early states. It is clear that Cruz’s well-developed campaign infrastructure and abundant face time in the state has the Rubio campaign concerned: …In interviews, speeches and in stealthier ways, Mr. Rubio has abruptly changed course, zeroing in on

Clinton Vows to Use Government or Non-Profits to Extend Abortion Funding Overseas

While the debate over defunding Planned Parenthood rages on, Hillary Clinton is now talking about extending funding for abortion beyond the United States.   The 1973 Helms Amendment, which states that “No foreign assistance funds may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning,” is the one constitutional inconvenience standing in Clinton’s way.  At a recent town hall in Iowa, Clinton was asked whether, given the fact ISIS is using rape as a weapon of war, she holds a “position on Helms as it relates to public funding for abortion.”   “I do

Obama’s Religious Test: Christians Don’t Count

Barack Obama says it is un-American to have a religious test in our refugee policy. But as we have pointed out, American law already states that we must have a religious test in deciding whether a certain group is in danger and should be given sanctuary. Here’s a quote right from the State Department’s web site about U.S. refugee policy: Under U.S. law, a refugee must have a well-founded fear of persecution based on one of the five ‘protected grounds’: Religion, Political opinion, Race, Nationality, Membership in a particular social group. Notice the very first category of “protected grounds” —