When Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) voted against the authorization of military force in Syria earlier this week in committee, he joined the other leading GOP contenders for president in 2016 — Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — in opposing military intervention.
It's an interesting and stunning reversal that it's now considered the politically safe decision for Republican lawmakers to vote against war. They may have noticed how Hillary Clinton's presidential hopes were dashed in 2008 after she voted to authorize the Iraq war.
They may also have seen how Paul has pulled much of the party toward his non-intervention philosophy. In the process, he's won the support of many younger voters.
However, with three lawmakers lining up against intervention, it does create a rather big opening for another Republican from the Establishment-side of the party in the event that the military strikes do actually achieve their goal.
That person could be New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), though he's trying very hard not to take a position.
The crisis in Syria has kicked off a serious and important debate within the Republican Party that will ultimately play out in the 2016 GOP primaries. It's going to be fascinating to watch.
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
- 43 TV shows to watch in 2014
- Is it now OK to have sex with animals?
- How to be the most productive person in your office — and still get home by 5:30 p.m.
- Republicans love this new health care plan. Too bad it's basically a tax cut for the rich.
- In defense of Gwyneth Paltrow
- What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?
- In Ferguson, Michael Brown lost his life — and America's police lost the benefit of the doubt
- 7 grammar rules you really should pay attention to
- Alien conspiracy theorists think the government is on the verge of spilling big secrets
Subscribe to the Week