Marco Rubio says he was against the big Omnibus spending bill and that even though he wasn’t there to vote against it, he argues not voting for it was, in essence, a vote against it. Or something:
I realize these guys are out campaigning and stuff and they are going to miss votes. But geez, this was a big vote and he wasn’t even there to vote against it. All the other candidates made it there to vote one way or the other.
It’s not a showstopper by any means, but it is pretty lame to excuse your absence by saying ‘not voting for it is a vote against it’.
UPDATE: People are comparing Rubio’s remarks to a similar statement made by Cruz earlier this year on the Lynch vote:
That was a serious question. Anyone? What’s the difference between these two positions? pic.twitter.com/iXWEuRiokX
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) December 18, 2015
But here’s the difference, as the referenced Politico article points out:
Cruz missed the vote because of a fundraising obligation in Texas, but he maintained that he had attended the only vote that mattered, an earlier vote to break a filibuster on Lynch.
Cruz voted against cloture earlier that day, meaning he wanted to keep the filibuster going to prevent the vote for Lynch. As Amanda Carpenter pointed out at the time, if they could get 60 votes for cloture then they could easily get 51 for Lynch’s confirmation:
If the Senate could get 60 votes for cloture, they could get 51 for final confirmation. Cloture is the only vote that mattered.
— Amanda Carpenter (@amandacarpenter) April 23, 2015
So the difference is here Cruz voted the same day against invoking cloture. Rubio did not. He missed all the votes this morning on the spending bill.