By Michael Collins Piper

.If current hype in the media is to be believed, Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.) are now the biggest names fighting for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.
In a CPAC straw poll, Paul edged Rubio by a margin of 25-23 percent with former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) trailing far behind at 8 percent. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — who was not invited to CPAC — followed with 7 percent. Rep. Paul Ryan (Wisc.), the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate, got 6 percent, with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker at 5 percent. Neurosurgeon Ben Carson, newly elected Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin came in last.
The media coverage of Paul and Rubio is interesting and suggests that the two are really much alike, despite cosmetic differences.
While Paul is often presented as a more “independent” voice, in contrast to Rubio who has well-established GOP ties, both are described as tea party favorites. And yet, Paul has carefully groomed links to high ranking GOP functionaries who helped him win his Kentucky Senate seat in 2006.
And despite the fact that within the tea party movement there is a stark (though little-noticed) divide over foreign policy, the two senators are closer than people realize.
Many tea party enthusiasts strongly support U.S. military ventures abroad, seeing America as a needed force for establishing a good, solid world order under what’s called “American exceptionalism” — that’s the New World Order — but many tea party folks don’t realize that. Rubio touts American exceptionalism, but Paul has expressed concerns (like his father, retired Rep. Ron Paul) about an over-reaching military presence around the globe.
At the same time, however, the media praises Paul, saying he stands in stark contrast — often described as “refreshing”—to his father who is cast as a likeable, though somewhat kooky, extremist. The media says Paul can reach a more broad-ranging GOP audience than his father ever could.
What’s more, the media gloats, Paul is reaching out to Israel and its influential supporters in America, which Rubio has already done during his fast rise to the top. And as leading neoconservative guru Frederick Kagan has noted, Paul does not differ from the neocons when it comes to Israel’s primary present concern: a nuclear-armed Iran.
While his own father was still running for president and criticizing bellicose voices urging U.S. and Israel military action against Iran, the younger Paul was voting for provocative measures against the Islamic republic, echoing rhetoric about Islamic extremism, akin to that of neocon power broker Norman Podhoretz who says America is now engaged in its “third world war” — against Islam.

For his own part, Rubio — the child of Cuban immigrants — is in trouble with many conservatives concerned about his immigration “reform” proposals many see as opening the door for legalization of millions of illegal immigrants now in America.
Likewise, libertarian conservatives — which Paul is — have been historically friendly toward “open borders.” Where Paul will stand on this issue, remains to be seen. However, he has talked about it in a manner that leaves many hard-line advocates of cracking down on illegal immigration a bit uneasy.
Meanwhile, according to The Washington Times — a beacon of “official” conservative thought — a new consensus is emerging among those who attended CPAC 2013. In a front page story on March 15, the Times reported: “GOP leaders have decided it’s time their party surmounts the immigration issue, embraces legalization and moves on.” It added that a CPAC panel on immigration “was stacked with advocates for legalization of illegal immigrants — a stance that until recently has been a decidedly minority position within the GOP.”
On the issue of “gay marriage” — which some prominent Republicans have endorsed — Paul and Rubio adopt a libertarian stance. Paul says he can envision reworking the tax code to permit homosexual couples to take advantage of tax benefits now available to heterosexual couples. Rubio told CPAC the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage to be between a man and woman should be abandoned and that the issue should be left to the states (a position Paul’s father took during his presidential campaign).

(Issue Number 13, April 1, 2013,
AMERICAN FREE PRESS)