The 2016 Republican nomination contest spilled onto the Senate floor Thursday, turning a marathon budget debate into a battle over which candidate is prepared to lead the country at a time of war.

Four GOP senators are trying to gain the upper hand on the commander-in-chief test — Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham — and their competition was on vivid display as the Senate took up a Rubio plan to pump tens of billions of dollars more into the Pentagon budget. Paul blasted the idea because the new spending wasn’t offset by other cuts. And caught in the middle was Cruz, who’s pitching himself as a fiscal conservative who can appeal to the hawkish and libertarian wings of the GOP but ultimately sided with Rubio and Graham.


In an interview with POLITICO, Paul lambasted his foes for engaging in “reckless” and “irresponsible” behavior, showing that they lacked the “courage” and conviction to rein in the country’s mountain of debt. He said there are now two camps in the GOP primary field: one that cares about the debt, and another that does not.

“I think there are a great deal of problems for people who want to argue that they are fiscal conservatives and yet would simply borrow hundreds of billions of dollars for defense,” Paul said. “I think it is irresponsible and dangerous to the country to borrow so much money to add into defense.”

The tough words came in the aftermath of two votes that both failed Thursday, one proposed by Rubio that would raise defense spending — with no corresponding cuts — and another by Paul that would cut tens of billions from a range of different accounts. Rubio said all other issues are “elementary” when compared with the funding for a robust national defense.

As the Rubio plan was moving forward, Cruz was clearly torn. The Texas senator stood quietly at the well of the Senate chamber for several tense minutes, reading the text of the Rubio amendment and checking his smartphone.

Finally, with his colleagues watching, Cruz gave a thumbs-up sign, siding with Rubio in the growing debate inside the party between fiscal hard-liners and defense hawks that has dominated the GOP’s budget fight.

“I think it is critical that we allocate the resources that are necessary to provide for our national security functions,” Cruz told reporters Thursday.

The deliberations on defense spending were the latest sign of jockeying among the Republican senators running for the White House. They’re pushing proposals and casting votes to bolster their messages — and keeping a close eye on the others’ every move.

Rubio has increasingly pushed for a larger and more robust U.S. presence worldwide, aligning himself with the likes of a leading GOP defense hawk, Graham, who is also weighing a 2016 run.

Cruz, at times, has sided with the libertarian wing of the party, including joining Paul to rail against the Obama administration’s drone policy and opposing the president’s effort to authorize strikes in Syria in 2013. Yet, he has joined with Republican hawks on other issues, including seeking a tough line against Russia and Vladimir Putin.

And then there’s Paul: As a libertarian-minded Republican who pushes for a less aggressive U.S. presence worldwide, his biggest hurdle as a national candidate is selling himself as a viable leader of the military.

Perhaps in response to that concern, Paul came up with his own idea this week aimed at showcasing his belief in a strong military, while staying true to his calls to rein in big federal deficits. He proposed an amendment to increase defense spending by $190 billion over the next two years, but he offset that spending hike with cuts to science, education and natural resource programs.

“I think it was irresponsible and dangerous … and an inconsistent theme for anybody who wants to say that they are concerned about the debt,” Paul said in the interview. “I think it shows a lack of concern about the debt. I think it was a very, very important vote to see the contrast of the two different approaches.”

Paul’s arguments failed to convince his colleagues in both parties Thursday. Democrats united against it, and most Republicans opposed it, too. It failed on a 4-96 vote, with Cruz, Rubio and Graham all opposing it.

The debate of Paul’s plan came immediately after the chamber voted down Rubio’s proposal. It showcased a clear contrast between the two likely candidates on one of the most important issues of 2016. Rubio’s plan fared slightly better than Paul’s, losing on a 32-68 vote; it also won the support of defense hawks like Graham and was cosponsored by Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton.

“The national security of our country is the predominant obligation of the federal branch of government,” Rubio said on the Senate floor. “It is the one thing that only the federal government can do, and it is the first thing that it is tasked with doing.”

This is similar to the point Rubio has made repeatedly as he prepares a 2016 run: Senators, he says, are more experienced in dealing with international affairs than governors, whose careers have been more rooted in parochial matters. And as fears over the Islamic State militants and Iran begin to dominate the debate on the campaign trail, the senators who are running for president are trying to showcase their foreign policy chops.

This is a central reason why Graham — who in contrast to the three first-term senators has served in Congress since 1995 — believes he has a serious chance of emerging from a crowded field. He has long been one of the Republicans’ most aggressive voices on foreign affairs. He’s been a staunch proponent of the Iraq War and a relentless critic of President Barack Obama’s national security policies.

Last week, Graham secured an amendment to increase the Overseas Contingency Operations account by $38 billion, up to $96 billion, a move that would allow the funds to be spent on defense and avoid the restrictions of budget caps. Critics, like Paul, view such moves as budget gimmicks. But Graham fired back, particularly at some fiscal hard-liners in the House Freedom Caucus who are skeptical of the higher defense numbers.

“The Freedom Caucus is not going to go to Iraq,” Graham said earlier this week. “Somebody else is going to go to Iraq and fight ISIL — not the Freedom Caucus. And when they go, I hope they are well-trained and well-equipped.”

But Paul added: “I think if you want to add money to defense, the difficult vote is mine. And it shows that there is not a great deal of courage out there among people. They went the easy way. They want to keep borrowing it. And that is a great danger for our country.”

Seung Min Kim contributed to this report.

Follow @politico