Chad’s Morning Brief: Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio Grow Apart and U.S. Diplomats Warned Hillary Against Blaming Benghazi Attack on a Video

This probably won't be the last time you see a story comparing the two young Senators running for President. The Chad Hasty Show airs 8:30-11am on KFYO.

Cruz/Rubio Relationship Status: It's Complicated

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have a lot in common but they have grown apart as both men seek the Republican nomination. According to the New York Times, Cruz once looked to Rubio for support but when an endorsement didn't come his way, Cruz took it personally.

But Mr. Cruz also sought a more direct connection to Mr. Rubio, making several pilgrimages to his Washington office for advice, as well as an endorsement, according to people who were members of Mr. Rubio’s staff at the time.

Mr. Rubio, by then outgrowing his Tea Party stage and seeking to position himself as a party leader who did not meddle in others’ primaries, never found room in his schedule for Mr. Cruz, who had to settle for a meeting with Mr. Rubio’s staff members.

Mr. Cruz won without Mr. Rubio’s endorsement, and later confided to a Republican senator that he “resented” Mr. Rubio’s reluctance to endorse him. Now, the two Republican stars, biographically similar but stylistically opposite, are running for president, and Mr. Cruz is privately telling colleagues that he believes the race for the party’s nomination will boil down to a contest between himself and Mr. Rubio.

It is a prospect made only more plausible by their standout performancesin Wednesday night’s presidential debate on CNBC, after which Mr. Rubio and his wife could be seen leaving the building with Mr. Cruz’s wife and children, smiles on all their faces.

But over the last few months, Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio have staked out opposing positions in the Senate that could become strengths, or weaknesses, in a two-man race. Mr. Rubio, for example, voted to give the Obama administration fast-track authority to push its Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, while Mr. Cruz, after initially supporting the bill,did not. And Mr. Rubio, loath to be tarnished with congressional inefficiency, has been less vocal about his willingness to shut down the government over the funding of Planned Parenthood than Mr. Cruz, who has predicated his presidential rationale on his ideological purity.

“They both walk to the edge of the pool,” said Jennifer Duffy, a Senate analyst at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. “Cruz always jumps in.”

Republican senators said that while Mr. Rubio and Mr. Cruz were never close, they had detected a chill between the two. “Their relationship has diverged,” Senator John McCain of Arizona said.

One senator used the word “wariness.” Another said that an unpersuasive argument for getting one on board with legislation would be pointing out that it was championed by the other. They, like other senators and staff members, spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly about their colleagues.

Now both 44 and eager to become the first Latino president, Mr. Rubio and Mr. Cruz are content to stay out of each other’s way on the campaign trial, both seeming more concerned now with clearing out competitors in their respective lanes. It was no accident that Mr. Rubio sparred in the debate with Jeb Bush, his rival for the support of Republican establishment donors. Or that Mr. Cruz steered clear of any conflict as he spoke directly to the camera about his born-again father in an effort to solidify his support among evangelicals.

But they are already competing in the Senate for the endorsement of Senator Mike Lee of Utah, who is admired by the conservative base for his anti-spending positions, and whose backing is considered a conservative seal of approval.

Mr. Cruz has made an overt pitch to Mr. Lee, talking about his success in fund-raising, why he stacks up better against the other candidates and why different pools of conservative voters will coalesce around him when, in his telling, the campaigns of Donald J. Trump and Ben Carson inevitably evaporate, according to a person with knowledge of the conversations.

But a recent spat in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing exposed signs of strain in the relationship between Mr. Cruz and Mr. Lee — who in the past were described, to the annoyance of Mr. Lee, as Batman and Robin. In the hearing, Mr. Cruz argued that measures proposed by Mr. Lee would weaken punishment of violent offenders, which Mr. Lee called a mischaracterization.

And as Rand Paul, who once seemed a chief competitor to Mr. Cruz for the conservative base, has lagged in polls, Mr. Rubio seems ready to capitalize, though in a subtle manner more reflective of his congenial style.

Mr. Rubio has made a point to ask Mr. Lee about his family, said a person with knowledge of those conversations. And Mr. Rubio’s “super PAC” airs ads in New Hampshire championing a tax plan he and Mr. Lee sponsored.

The two candidates declined to comment about their relationship, but their advisers sought in interviews to tamp down any notion of tension, while still acknowledging their differences. On a more personal level, Mr. Cruz’s musical tastes are country, while Mr. Rubio’s run toward West Coast rap, and they have shared few, if any, meals outside the Senate. Nevertheless, the advisers described a collegial relationship based on common ideology, cultural references — both talk of their Cuban émigré families on the campaign trail, and oppose President Obama’s opening of ties to Cuba — and ability to rib each other over political headaches (the government shutdown for Mr. Cruz, immigration policy for Mr. Rubio).

This article lays the foundation for a future battle between Cruz and Rubio. Cruz, the conservative warrior who won't compromise versus Rubio, the conservative who looks for common ground.

While Rubio and Cruz may not be close, I don't believe that they are very far apart. If the GOP race ends up being between these two the debate may be over which candidate is the warrior and which candidate may have broader appeal.

Hillary Warned Not to Blame Video

According to FOX News, diplomats warned Hillary Clinton and the State Department not to blame a YouTube video in the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi.

Hillary Clinton and other State Department officials were apparently warned by overseas U.S. diplomats about blaming the 2012 Benghazi terror strikes on an “inflammatory” Internet video, according to an email released Saturday by House Republicans probing the fatal attacks.

The email was sent three days after the fatal Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on a U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, and two days before then-National Security Adviser Susan Rice went on TV to say the attacks were inspired by the anti-Islamic video.

The email -- released by the GOP-led House Select Committee on Benghazi -- was sent from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Libya, to the State Department, which Clinton led from 2009 to 2013. But the names of the exact sender and receiver have been redacted.

“The film’s not as explosive of an issue here as it appears to be in other countries in the region,” the unknown sender wrote. “And it is becoming increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest, which escalated into violence.

“It is our opinion that in our messaging, we want to distinguish, not conflate, the events in other countries with this well planned attack by militant extremists.”

The official writes the suggestion to Washington was based on monitoring the Libyan media, comments on such social media sites as Facebook and Twitter and talking to residents, who expressed “sorrow” about the attacks and “anger” toward the attackers.

Just add this to the growing amount of evidence that Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration lied to the American people.