RIGHT SPEAK: Does Marco Rubio's 'no' vote on Syria Tell us anything?

Out of 18 votes on Syria in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday, the most interesting was Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s “no” vote.

It was a striking and somewhat unexpected decision for a Republican who has long advocated more engagement with elements of the movement opposing the Syrian government. While Rubio’s “no” puts him in line with the crop of prospective 2016 GOP presidential candidates, most of whom either oppose a strike or have been silent, he is not joining the ranks of libertarian-leaning Republicans in the field who favor a more hands-off approach abroad.

Rubio has staked out a position in Syria that is in one way all his own, and in another, simply a middle ground between two competing camps. The question now is whether that will help or hurt his standing within the party.

Heading into this week’s debate over whether to launch a military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for the alleged use of chemical weapons, there was uncertainty about where Rubio would come down. On the one hand, he has called for more intervention (though not in the form of a military strike) in Syria; on the other, support for a strike would align him with a Democratic president at a time when he is seeking to repair his image among conservatives after a months-long push for a sweeping immigration reform bill. And it would make him stand out like a sore thumb in the potential 2016 field.

“A yes vote would be a contaminant for any Republican running for president,” said veteran Republican strategist Ed Rogers. “There are valid good reasons to support the resolution but if you are explaining, you are losing. No way a 2016 contender should support this.”