Patterico's Pontifications

12/17/2015

Unfair Establishment Attacks on Cruz, Part 1: Immigration

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:36 am



People are accusing Ted Cruz of lying about whether he supported legal immigration. For example, Yahoo:

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, won plaudits in Tuesday night’s debate for his takedown of Sen. Marco Rubio’s, R-Fla., immigration reform effort in 2013.

Yet if Cruz’s explanation of why he proposed an amendment to the 2013 legislation is true, then he blatantly misrepresented his own intentions at the time on at least four occasions.

Cruz denied on Tuesday that he has ever supported legal status for undocumented immigrants.

“I have never supported legalization, and I do not intend to support it,” Cruz said, when questioned by Rubio.

In 2013, however, Cruz sponsored an amendment that would have allowed undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States permanently and obtain legal status, while eliminating a path to citizenship. It is very hard to square that effort with Cruz’s claim that he has “never supported legalization.”

Not really.

Cruz offered amendments that he knew could not pass, which had as their main purpose the illustration of Democrats’ hypocrisy. They claimed they weren’t trying to get illegals citizenship, so Cruz said: “OK, let’s give them everything else but rule out citizenship. Sound good? Yeah, I didn’t think so.”

Let’s start with an easy-to-answer question: was Cruz actually for the Gang of Eight bill? The answer is no. Plenty of people are throwing around accusations that he wanted the bill to pass. But if you carefully review their evidence, you will see that Cruz said he wanted immigration reform to pass — but with several amendments that would have radically changed the bill into something that was no longer the Gang of Eight bill — and which everybody knew would never ever pass. Byron York, who was critical of Cruz yesterday, said in 2013:

Cruz’s amendments were designed to 1) eliminate the legalization-first, security-later structure of the Gang of Eight bill while still creating a way to legalize those now here illegally; 2) increase certain types of legal immigration; and 3) remove what might be called the moral hazard of rewarding those who came here illegally with citizenship and federal benefits. “In introducing amendments, what I endeavored to do was improve that bill so that it actually fixes the problem,” Cruz told me.

Each of Cruz’s amendments was entirely defensible, but also entirely impossible in today’s climate. The Gang of Eight bill is a painstakingly-crafted proposal which Democrats would abandon immediately if any of Cruz’s ideas were incorporated in it. Schumer and his allies have a long list of deal-killers, and it includes every single one of Ted Cruz’s ideas.

Cruz’s amendments were never going to pass and everyone knew it, but they had a wonderful illustrative effect.

Moreover, at the link, you can see that York called Cruz to ask if he would vote for the bill if all his amendments were passed. A spokesman said it was a hypothetical question. So you can’t even say he clearly supported the bill even with his amendments.

OK: if Cruz was not for the Gang of Eight bill, was he for some kind of legalization? This is where some accuse him of flat-out lying at the debate — supporting it then and opposing it (and saying he never supported it) now — while others just say he is being lawyerly. Some accuse him of denying that the amendments were a “poison pill” but admitting it now.

Most of this analysis, in my view, rushes to oversimplify Cruz’s position at the time. They falsely imply Cruz was TOTALLY FOR LEGALIZATION if citizenship was ruled out. They ignore all the other amendments he made, and ignore his contemporary statements that he didn’t expect the amendments to pass. Then, when you point that out, they complain that he claimed the amendments were sincere then but now denies that, ergo LIAR.

Responding to that fully would make the post too long, but I do have answer with an analogy, which you can read at this page. The bottom line is that it ends up being a kind of angels dancing on the head of a pin deal, and his denial at the debate was, I think, perfectly defensible.

In a future post I will discuss another unfair attack: that Cruz discussed classified information at the debate. Short answer: utter nonsense, floated by a recipient of Jeb Bush Super-PAC money and repeated by Big Media without scrutiny.

UPDATE: Some of you are swallowing the Big Media/Yahoo/Bret Baier “he wanted ‘it’ to pass” line. Wanted what to pass?

Greg Sargent, of all people, actually looks at the quotes and concludes that Cruz did not say what they are claiming. He wanted his version of reform to pass. That was very different from the Gang of Eight bill or anything Rubio is calling “legalization” without explanatory context. Sargent’s piece is excellent and worth your time.

136 Responses to “Unfair Establishment Attacks on Cruz, Part 1: Immigration”

  1. I guess the take home lesson is, to the MSM, some lies are more equal than others.

    Simon Jester (2708f4)

  2. I will go along with your premise that he designed it to be a poison pill. That makes him dishonest in saying he wanted the bill to pass and when he said it wasn’t a poison pill. Either way you slice it, he was dishonest. Also he should have been clearer in the debate, because he knew what Rubio was referring to. Had he done that he could avoided the whole situation. He could have said Rubio is referring to an amendment I filed in the past, that amendment was meant as a poison pill to the gang of 8 bill which I oppose. I didn’t support legalization then and I don’t now. I think that would have played better, but he comes off of it looking bad.

    Matthew Frohbieter (d6bf67)

  3. I think this might be a good time to revive the Intentionalism Debates.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  4. Cruz is easily the most philosophically reliable of the Republicans. But since we do live in the age of the sound bite and reality TV — which is closely related to other superficial qualities of a person, such as his/her looks and demeanor (or so-called charisma) — I’m apprehensive that Cruz’s aquiline face and rather high-pitched voice won’t exactly endear him (or be thrilling enough) to all the squish-squish-squishy Americans out there.

    The question is whether that light at the end of the tunnel is someone decent and normal finally being voted into the presidency in 2016 or, as the joke goes, is an oncoming train.

    Mark (f713e4)

  5. This also illustrates the problems with the use of Legislation as Posturing (i.e. “legislation” uncoupled from the practical notion of Law). The two are supposed to be considered entwined. If you want to score rhetorical points, do it in a medium that doesn’t bind the rest of us by Law if your colleagues fail to realize that you’re just f*cking around.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  6. At the time, I took Cruz’s proposals seriously and objected to his no path to citizenship as, in my own words then, “pandering to the mouth-breathers”. (I’m not sure if I used a hyphen.) I think a lot of other people did too. In our defense, we are not Senators, and do not grasp the intricacies of parliamentary procedure.

    nk (dbc370)

  7. it’s not an accident that he was Princeton’s debate champion, and Dershowitz regards him as one of his best students, but the lie must be maintained.

    narciso (732bc0)

  8. I think a lot of other people did too.

    Took him seriously. Not necessarily the pandering to mouth-breathers part.

    nk (dbc370)

  9. Trump/Cruz 2016

    where Failmerica shops for value

    happyfeet (831175)

  10. The Beltway leaders hated Cruz for using a filibuster-like speech to try to defund ObamaCare because they said it was unfair to risk shutting down the government. Beltway leaders also hated Cruz for using an amendment to try to stop the Gang of 8 in 2013 because it unfair to show that the immigration bill was about amnesty or to do anything that might stop amnesty.

    I see a pattern. They hate Cruz.

    DRJ (15874d)

  11. Surprisingly (to me), FactCheck says Cruz could be lying about legalization or he could be telling the truth that this was a political move to stop the Gang if 8.

    DRJ (15874d)

  12. And that is the problem. I think everyone knows that D’s support amnesty. I don’t think that’s in question. And yet we’re ClusterFarking around to score debate points.

    But Cruz’s answer _ I don’t intend to support amnesty is the other half of the discussion regarding this topic from the debate on Tuesday.

    At the end of the day – had he just said what Rubio said – until the wall is built, verify who’s here, visa overstays, enforcement of the law – we can then talk about what to do next. . . allowing for options to be presented.

    There’s no way in hell Trump is going to deport/import 10M thru a “door.” An electronic / virtual door, yes. Physical door? No way in hell.

    Steve_in_SoCal (998566)

  13. Sure it’s unfair but this is why so few senators don’t get elected president.

    All Cruz had to do was focus on the bigger immigration picture. Instead he got himself tangled up in all the things we hate about Washington and the political sausage grinder. Trump has stayed remarkably undamaged by this type of attack because he stays remarkably focused on his winning bumper sticker message. Until this episode, Cruz appeared to understand the appeal of strong leadership over just another calculating politician. He’d be wise to get this cleaned up fast by refocusing on the sausage not on what goes in it.

    crazy (cde091)

  14. The problem with politicians from the legislature is that parliamentary maneuvers are often Byzantine and easy to misrepresent.

    I find it easy to believe that Cruz is doing the misrepresentation here. Be that as it may. This is why John Kerry thought “I voted for it before I voted against it” would clear up any questions about his position.

    Gabriel Hanna (e4d0d0)

  15. I get that, Gabriel. I’m more familiar with Cruz and expect him to use amendments to make points, both because it’s a legal tactic he would be comfortable using and because the fallout from the possible government shutdown over ObamaCare funding would make Cruz look for other ways to make his points.

    But I would have the same concerns about politicians I’m not as familiar with, which is why I wonder about the character of people like Marco Rubio, Scott Walker and Chris Christie. I want to like them but I can’t be sure.

    DRJ (15874d)

  16. Two things,

    First, I heard an interview where it seemed Rubio he was saying he no longer agreed with the “Gang of 8 bill”, anyone have thoughts? Had he not done that I would be interested in him.

    Second, you do a service by putting up for examination any criticisms that come up out there,
    but, at the moment, I have a lot on my mind,
    and I’m going to look for a headline that reads:
    “Reasonable Attack that Warrants Examination”…

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  17. If it is Cruz or Trump, it is now obvious not one ryan republican will vote for them.
    I wonder if ryan helped rig the upcoming election. It is his style.

    mg (31009b)

  18. Erick Erickson sees good and bad in Rubio and Cruz. I do, too. I especially think Cruz should have seen this coming and been ready to address it. I also worry about how easily manipulated Rubio is.

    DRJ (15874d)

  19. Rubio’s staff and backers love amnesty. Maybe Rubio has changed his mind on amnesty but I doubt the people around him have.

    DRJ (15874d)

  20. Rubio is still smarmy and weak and he has gooey fingers

    happyfeet (831175)

  21. point well taken, but our intrepid inigo montoya, had to be wiley against dread pirate roberts, btw, the bill was before the shutdown, and it illustrated the gang of eight, hadn’t learned a lesson,

    narciso (732bc0)

  22. Good point, narciso. I apologize if my timeline is backward, but the larger point stands that Cruz is willing to try different ways to accomplish his goals.

    DRJ (15874d)

  23. I had to check the date, myself, dread pirate roberts of searchlight, and his deputy, which I think would have been schumer,

    narciso (732bc0)

  24. Cruz is the most qualified person in the world–maybe the only person in the world–qualified to be POTUS. Of course the media is pulling out the stops to smear him. He’s 100x smarter than the MSM and the average American voter. Then again, I’ve had pet mice who were 100x smarter than the MSM and the average American voter.

    The press is in full-blown “get Trump” mode now. Once he’s out of the race they’ll turn their attention to badmouthing Cruz.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  25. The reason many RINOs despise Cruz is precisely because he has exposed them as frauds of the first order using these parliamentary maneuvers. The question that we need to ask is whether it is plausible that these RINOs will ever find it in their (personal) interest to support the policies and actions that are becoming increasingly necessary.

    Cruz’s A Time for Truth explains a number of the maneuvers that angered the RINOs in 2013 and 2014. I found his explanation credible. And everything I’ve seen since with respect to these RINOs just reinforces my belief that Cruz is telling it like it is. A case in point, at Cruz’s hearing last Tuesday on “Data or Dogma“, every single Democrat plus their ex-officio member, Nelson, showed up to chant “97% Consensus!” while only one other Republican dared to show his face. This despite the fact that 97% of the electorate thinks that the whole climate change issue is of no significance. RINOs seem to be uniquely inept when it comes to reading the concerns of their constituents. They are forever reliving their angst over that nasty ad that nearly cost them the election five years ago (cf., Paul Ryan pushing Granny over the cliff.)

    I bought my (autographed) copy of the book from the Cruz campaign (at a substantial premium,) but the link above uses the Patterico search box. The book is illuminating.

    We are living in a time that is very analogous to the mid-1850s. What we call RINOs were Whigs in those days. The Whigs didn’t like slavery, but they felt they could do a good business with the Democrats, and their personal interests overcame any concerns about the morality of the slavery issue. Our RINOs believe they can manage the welfare state more efficiently than the Democrats, and that is the basis for their claim to power. They would build a better website for Obamacare.

    It is understandable that some are concerned that these parliamentary maneuvers seem Byzantine. But if we are to behave responsibly, we must realize that such maneuvers are the only real alternative to war or to the surrender of our individual freedoms. The Democrats are skilled at these maneuvers, and have used them for centuries. These “maneuvers” result in good or bad laws depending upon what’s in the law and this often determines who supports the legislation. Good or bad, these laws are the essential feature of a democracy.

    If you believe that we can elect a responsible government using the 1-minute sound bite, and you think legislation should be passes based on the title of the bill and not its details, then you deserve the government that you will find yourself subservient to. Good luck Comrade!

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  26. Cruz is harvard trash by way of canada and a self-promoting piece of crap besides with a goldman sachs trophy hooch hanging around his neck like a thug rapper’s bling

    plus he’s a US senator for christ’s sake

    things are bad but not so bad that we need to look at the sewer of the US senate for leadership

    happyfeet (831175)

  27. Ward is a hack, from back when he was at the Washington Times, when he sneered at the Huntress, moved to the Puffington Host, which is about his speed, he’s another piece from Youwho,

    https://www.yahoo.com/politics/in-line-to-see-trump-1318469047787574.html

    narciso (732bc0)

  28. “Cruz is harvard trash by way of canada and a self-promoting piece of crap besides with a goldman sachs trophy hooch hanging around his neck like a thug rapper’s bling.”

    – happyfeet

    And Donald Trump is the closest thing we’ve had to an out-and-out fascist in American politics in maybe the entire history of our country. I’ll take the self-promoting piece of crap, if it comes down to that.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  29. godwin violation on the forty yard line, no he’s more Teddy Roosevelt who was a nationalist, but progressive on economic policy,

    narciso (732bc0)

  30. nonono Donald Trump is NOT a fascist Mr. Leviticuckoo

    he’s a picklehead!

    happyfeet (831175)

  31. Mr. The Donald’s only goal as president would be to be a really good president

    he has no agenda other than that

    Hitler had all kinds of agenda, same as how Hillary has

    Cruz would just be a weirdo thought experiment that everyone would feel more than free to undermine cause he has no substance

    happyfeet (831175)

  32. Cruz reminds me a lot of scientology

    happyfeet (831175)

  33. and his hooch reminds me of this quintessentially failmerican obscenity

    it truly is time we start more aggressively exploring the terrain of post-america

    this country’s already down the crapper

    too bad so sad

    happyfeet (831175)

  34. head of W’s Domestic policy counsel, daughter of missionaries, well you were spawned by wolves, which explains a great deal,

    narciso (732bc0)

  35. Bottom line: Cruz wasn’t serious about any of his amendments (in terms of wanting them to pass) and you would have a hard time guessing what he actually was for. He appears never to have introduced an ideal “Ted Cruz” bill.

    Of course theer’s ways to do such things (come up with an ideal bill that will not pass) in order to be on both sides of the issue.

    Barack Obama actually did something like that in 2007. (Refusing to go along with a bill because it made too many workers temporary, after leading people to believe he was intereested in a
    compromise bill. He did not admit his objections would have the effect of killing the bill. I mean it’s one thing to admit you’re voting to kill the bill. It’s another thing to claim that it doesn’t, when it does.)

    One of Barack Obama’s few active activities in the Senate.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/07/john-mccain/john-mccain-said-barack-obama-voted-against-part-i/

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351228/sen-barack-obama-2007-immigration-bill

    Sammy Finkelman (a69e24)

  36. exactly!

    happyfeet (831175)

  37. You had to know this was coming. Strategic lying about congressional votes is commonplace. Pols do it; pundits do it. That Cruz has been at the forefront in pointing out the contrived and dishonest nature of the structuring of congressional votes and the intended-to-mislead voting patterns of our representatives is among the many reasons we’ll see the long knives coming out now that the Cruz campaign has gained traction. That Cruz’ critics now choose to lie about his congressional voting record seem apropos. It’s their fallback and always has been. One of the high points of the debate was seeing Rand take Cruz’ back in calling out Rubio for his dishonesty about the congressional vote. I wasn’t expecting that.
    As many have now pointed out, a Cruz presidency threatens to be far more transformational than anything Trump would conjure up, though we haven’t heard much Cruz bashing with Trump stealing the spotlight. That’s an important point and one that Cruz, at least, clearly understands: as long as Trump is running interference for him, Cruz’ quietly competent campaign can wrap up support in the early-voting states. The timing of the Cruz breakout couldn’t be better, with less than two months left until Iowa and Trump still capturing the lion’s share of media attention. At this late date, it won’t be easy for establishment interests and their handmaidens in the media to bring Cruz down.
    Presidential primary season constitutes a complex system of often-shifting allying and adversarial relationships among candidates. The simplistic White Hat/Black Hat model seems ill-suited to campaign analysis, at least when we have a group of contenders of this quality. It is inspiring to watch Cruz navigate the swamp, when others try, with little success, to drain it. (I can’t say it wasn’t fun to watch Jeb Bush, with his not-so-presidential earnest schoolboy persona, take on the biggest alligator. Poor Jeb!).

    ThOR (a52560)

  38. 2. I will go along with your premise that he designed it to be a poison pill. That makes him dishonest in saying he wanted the bill to pass and when he said it wasn’t a poison pill. Either way you slice it, he was dishonest.

    Matthew Frohbieter (d6bf67) — 12/17/2015 @ 7:45 am

    Do play poker as honestly as you expect Cruz to maneuver in the Senate. Do you announce when you’re bluffing? Or, better yet, do you voluntarily tell the other players what cards you’re holding?

    Because if you do I want to play poker with you some time.

    If he had stood up in the Senate and announced “I’m only proposing this amendment as a poison pill” it never would have even got scheduled for consideration. The only way it could ever gotten debated and a vote is if Cruz pretended to want it to pass.

    So apparently your problem with Cruz is that he isn’t a blithering idiot.

    As Dana’s reference to Byron York and what he wrote at the time Cruz was proposing his amendments, everybody knew Cruz’s amendments were deal breakers. That’s why Sen. Sessions voted for this particular amendment. He wanted to torpedo the gang of eight bill as much as Cruz. He wouldn’t have voted for these amendments otherwise.

    Speaking of the gang of eight, do you recall the flat out lies they were telling the public when they were trying to slip their immigration past the public? I recall a few. For instance, they insisted their bill’s legalization/citizenship process was tougher on illegal immigrants than what current law allows. Current law requires illegal aliens to leave the US, return to their home country, and begin the immigration process from there. So, why did we need this newer, “tougher” process which allowed illegal aliens to sail through the entire process while remaining here.

    If I had been in Congress, I’d have made a sarcastic floor speech demanding to know where the Democrats compassion was. “Please, let’s not make things harder on these poor illegal aliens. Don’t you have a heart? Haven’t they suffered enough? Let’s not be cruel and inflict this ‘tougher’ process on them.” Then I would have moved to eliminate the parts of the bill that would allow any illegal alien to remain in the country while trying to legalize their presence.

    I’m sure you would have called that dishonest. But do you actually expect the liars behind the gang of eight bill to actually admit that they were actually making things easier for illegal aliens, not harder? How would you have exposed that lie? By announcing your amendment was only a poison pill, a deal breaker? Because if you did then your amendment simply would have been ignored, and the substance of what the gang of bill intended to do never would have been exposed.

    A couple of other lies; it wasn’t an amnesty. Not only was it an amnesty, it was several amnesties wrapped up in one bill. Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime. When illegal aliens fill out their I9 forms and attest that they can legally work in the US, they do so under penalty of perjury. So there’s one federal felony, the penalty being five years in prison and/or a fine. Then they have to provide documents to prove that they can legally work in the US. Since illegal aliens can not do so the documents they present to the employer are falsified. That’s document fraud, another five year federal felony. And here’s the kicker. When illegal aliens use those fraudulent documents most of the time they are committing partial identity theft. They are using someone else’s SSN. Either one that has already been issued or an otherwise valid SSN that will be issued. So often it’s children who are victimized for years, as adults discover the fraud earlier, so they can and many do turn 18 and find they have huge credit card debts, the IRS is after them for back taxes, and they have criminal records.

    Aside; since the IRS and SSA will not cooperate with American citizens and reveal who is using that individuals SSN, information that they do in fact have, states have had to step in and criminalize this partial identity theft by illegal aliens under state law.

    https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/october-23-2012/use-total-identity-theft-growing-among-illegal-aliens.html

    …In the past, illegal aliens pared their own name with a stolen Social Security Number to get a job or even file income taxes. But the use of fake numbers is more difficult now with the expanding use of E-Verify. The Social Security Administration used to send employers no-match letters when the data on W-2 forms did not match the agency’s records, but this practice was discontinued by the Obama Administration, at least for immigration purposes.

    …Under the Obama Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, an illegal alien who has used a fraudulent or stolen Social Security Number to obtain employment does not have to reveal the felonious act on an application for work authorization.

    And guess what? Illegal aliens wouldn’t have to reveal their felonies under the gang of eight bill. And
    the feds certainly wouldn’t look for them because “we have to bring them out of the shadows” or something
    and of course the poor, put-upon illegal aliens wouldn’t come forward and “we wouldn’t know who is in this country” or something.

    Yes, actually we would know who is in this country. We already know who is in this country. Millions of identity thieves who the feds are doing their damndest to make sure are not and will never pay a price for their felonies.

    How is letting these people get away with multiple felonies committed after and in addition to the crime of illegally crossing the border not amnesty?

    Then there was the lie that the gang of eight bill required “tough” border enforcement first. The border would have to be secured first before any illegal alien could begin the legalization process. Not if you read the fine print. If the feds failed to meet their timeline for securing the border that would trigger, ta da! More talk about securing the border. A “Border Commission” would have taken over the job of dithering about securing the border if DHS failed to do within five years. And then they could take forever to discuss the issue.

    Meanwhile, none of this would have delayed the hard and fast timeline to begin legalizing illegal aliens. Unlike securing the border, the gang of eight bill actually required the feds to do that.

    Oh, another lie. These illegal aliens wouldn’t qualify qualify for government benefits for 10 years. Sometimes the lie was restricted to no federal benefits. Of course they’d receive government benefits, as states are already giving illegal aliens state benefits. As far as federal benefits, of course they would continue to get what they are already getting. “Child Tax Credits” and “Earned Income Tax Credits” are scored as welfare by the CBO since when someone files a tax return and their income is too low to owe taxes, they these “tax credits” are nothing of the sort. They’re just simple a government check, a wealth transfer from tax payers to non-taxpayers. And while the gang of eight was attempting to fool the American people that these newly legalized illegal aliens wouldn’t get benefits under Obamacare (?!?!) the Obamacare law allowed just that. And still allows it, as during the summer of 2013 the Senate voted down a proposal that would have changed the law and barred illegal aliens from getting taxpayer-funded benefits under Obamacare.

    And unless you can force illegal aliens to stop having children, their US born children qualify for a whole host of federal benefits, which benefit the entire family and not just the US citizen child.

    Since Cruz was playing what amounts to high stakes poker with brazen liars, how do you not understand he had to play a certain game? The gang of eight bill would now be law had he not effectively played that game. Is that the outcome you would have preferred? Because that’s the outcome you would have had if he had said straight out he was only proposing his amendments as poison pills.

    Steve57 (50e6a1)

  39. Has Cruz lied about his immigration position? Yes. Granted, nowhere near as much as that lunatic Trump, but to suggest Cruz hasn’t lied demonstrates you’re being blinded by pure ideology. You’ll note that Cruz has actively refused to explain what he’d do with the 12 million illegals if he was elected president. How could you not notice that? His vaunted immigration plan was extremely detailed but omitted that little aspect. His public comments when the Gang of 8 bill was making the rounds also don’t sync up with his campaign’s current rhetoric.

    Cruz is being purposefully vague to the point of lying and deflecting in order to maintain ambiguity. It’s not unlike a certain first-term Senator who ran for president in 2008; he’s letting his supporters and staff apply a position to him while he keeps his own mouth shut. Cruz is obviously doing this to avoid getting hammered in the general as anti-immigration. Rest assured, this Fall, if Cruz is the nominee, he’ll boast about that amendment as proof positive that he’s for legalization–certain that his supporters won’t care about the brazen flip-flop ’cause stopping Hillary will be priority #1.

    I realize it’s common to for politicians to be vague on details until after they get the votes, but you should always be weary of someone who actively refuses to explain a major policy position. You don’t get much more major that a position that relates to 12 million people.

    tops116 (d094f8)

  40. Since Cruz was playing what amounts to high stakes poker with brazen liars, how do you not understand he had to play a certain game?

    So, in other words, you’re fine with Cruz being a brazen liar because you’ve found a way to make it fit with your current ideology? Applying a position to a presidential candidate who’s actively vague on the details. Who does that remind me of? Perhaps Barack Obama knows the answer.

    I honestly don’t mind Cruz being vague on his position. That’s part of the game of politics, but it is annoying to see the faithful (so blinded by ideology) actively claim it’s everyone else’s fault that Cruz left himself open to this criticism. Don’t go picking on the critics just because they were paying attention.

    tops116 (d094f8)

  41. no, he wanted to ascertain what their true objective, and that is citizenship, a prerequisite of fundamental transformation, that is the end of the road,

    narciso (732bc0)

  42. Cruz’ support for massively increasing the corrupt H1B visa program is a fair thing to attack him on wrt immigration. Just not by Rubio, who is a bigger H1B supporter.

    As for immigration, I’d like to see a Constitutional amendment that says that only persons who have entered the USA in accordance with then-existing statutes may be naturalized.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  43. I too am willing (and I was back when it was happening, too) to accept Cruz’s attempted amendments to the gang of 8 bill as a poison pill play. And I think that doing so was sneaky, shrewd, and Machiavellian of him, and I applaud him for it! (When faced with scum like the gang of 8 who are pushing something harmful to America, doing whatever it takes to beat them is the only sane course).

    However; I absolutely did not like Cruz’s answer to Rubio in the debate regarding legalization and a pathway to citizenship. That called for a yes or no answer, and instead, Cruz, even when pressed, would not give one. Instead, he said “I do not intend”. It’s worth bearing in mind that Cruz was on the debate team, and is also a skilled courtroom lawyer. Those are weasel words, and I find the fact that he stuck to using them when pressed troubling indeed. The reason this bothers me so much goes far beyond immigration; using weasel words during a presidential debate is an attempt to do one thing: deceive voters. And that’s something I cannot ever support. If I was sure that’s what he was doing, there’s no way I could support him.

    I applaud Cruz for shining a light on Rubio’s perfidy at the debate, but his own response left me doubting him. I was a Cruz leaner before the debate, and I suppose I still am, I’m just a less sure one now due to the suspicions that one exchange raised, and am taking a second look at the rest of the field, just in case. I’m also going to be looking into Cruz’s coming votes and actions on the current omnibus funding bill, which is a total disaster in many ways, immigration included. If he supports that bill (Other than adding poison pills to it), I’m definitely in candidate-shopping mode.

    Arizona CJ (dabb2a)

  44. @Steve57

    But do you actually expect the liars behind the gang of eight bill to actually admit that they were actually making things easier for illegal aliens, not harder?

    I think they would admit that. It is hard to understand it any other way.

    They’d have these extra fees, or fines.

    What they said was that it would harder than it would be for somebody else to immigrate legally (ignoring the issue of a quota and restrictions, which the opponents also prefer to ignore, because it damages their point about “waiting in line” and that many people’s ancestors came legally – although not quite that scrupulously legally if you were to know and examine the facts.)

    And unless you can force illegal aliens to stop having children, their US born children qualify for a whole host of federal benefits, which benefit the entire family and not just the US citizen child.

    The amount is probably not affected, and the child is already eligible for such benefits, so what would change?

    Now what everybody is being dishonest about is about paying back taxes. They just wouldn’t audit them maybe. It’s quite impossible for a poor person whose wages were not withheld. And impossible to calculate anyway, with no data. Anyone paid with a false Social Security number or using somebody else’s Social Security number would of course, have had taxes withheld, maybe more than due, but nobody was serious about this thing, and nobody examined it.

    They’re not serious about the calculations for Obamacare subsidies, also, and Obama has done everything he can to postpone the day of reckoning.

    Then there was the lie that the gang of eight bill required “tough” border enforcement first. The border would have to be secured first before any illegal alien could begin the legalization process.

    I’m not sure they exactly say that. The problem is, of course, achieving border control is a poison pill, but a poison pill that people have trouble saying is a poison pill. It can never be achieved to the opponent’s satisfaction. The gang of 8 was looking for a metric, in Senator Schumer’s words. Schumer might have liked to use the amount of money spent.

    The people claiming they wanted border control first were also lying because there was no situation in which they would say border control was achieved, and the more honest restrictionsts admit that.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  45. Schumer was always for more economic control – employment verification and the like.

    The BIG FACT that neither side wanted to admit, when talking about amnesty/earned pathway to citizenship was that many people could not immigrate legally.

    Obama opposed larger temporary worker program. He said it is naive to beleive that poeople who do not have a way to stay legally will simply leave.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  46. UPDATE: Some of you are swallowing the Big Media/Yahoo/Bret Baier “he wanted ‘it’ to pass” line. Wanted what to pass?

    Greg Sargent, of all people, actually looks at the quotes and concludes that Cruz did not say what they are claiming. He wanted his version of reform to pass. That was very different from the Gang of Eight bill or anything Rubio is calling “legalization” without explanatory context. Sargent’s piece is excellent and worth your time.

    Patterico (958cf0)

  47. But I guess tops116 thinks Sargent is blinded by his ideology.

    Patterico (7aee3d)

  48. Arizona CJ:

    I think he is looking to avoid being demagogued by Hillary. He is definitely leaving his options open. And I have noticed how he ducks the issue of what to do with the 11 million. Of course I have. I think it’s probably smart for him to answer that way. The way he ducks it is convincing as a “ducking” can be — he points out that Big Media wants to focus on that issue when it is not really the pressing issue. And it’s not. It’s just where Hillary and her media friends want the conversation to be.

    Patterico (958cf0)

  49. Perhaps the thing I like best about Cruz is that he is in command of himself, his message, and his campaign. In a profession that seems dominated by half-wits and bloviating fools, he displays the comportment of the rightful king. Is it, somehow, a shortcoming that Cruz won’t “take the bait”? Not in my world.

    ThOR (a52560)

  50. For those who don’t like Cruz…
    who do you like better?

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  51. 39. …So, in other words, you’re fine with Cruz being a brazen liar because you’ve found a way to make it fit with your current ideology? Applying a position to a presidential candidate who’s actively vague on the details. Who does that remind me of? Perhaps Barack Obama knows the answer.

    tops116 (d094f8) — 12/17/2015 @ 11:45 am

    No, I’m fine with Cruz winnowing out the truth from brazen liars. Which is precisely what he did when he did when he forced the Democrats to reveal what they were actually up to.

    As narciso astutely observes.

    40. no, he wanted to ascertain what their true objective, and that is citizenship, a prerequisite of fundamental transformation, that is the end of the road,

    narciso (732bc0) — 12/17/2015 @ 11:49 am

    What are you? Some sort of concern troll? Because for some reason you seem to think we should 1) let the left set the rules then 2) lose.

    I’m not down for that. And show me exactly where Cruz “blatantly lied.” Nobody believed for a minute that he wanted the gang of eight bill to pass in 2013. His critics in the press understood that at the time. Go back and reread the original post; Byron York knew exactly what Cruz was up to in 2013. Now all of a sudden he gets the vapors and somehow Cruz was “lying” then or he’s “lying” now when he says he introduced amendments as poison pills to derail the gang of eight bill.

    Huh? Byron York was writing in 2013, when Cruz was introducing those amendments that they would derail the bill. Just how did Cruz lie to Byron York? If anyone is lying it’s his critics now.

    I knew Cruz wasn’t lying to me in 2013, so I’m not going dishonestly claim as his critics are doing that he was either lying then or he’s lying now. He wasn’t. He was careful with his words, true. He didn’t come out and say precisely what he was up to. But that’s not lying. Every single person in the world with a brain negotiates precisely that way. They never say precisely what they really want. Your opening position is always far more than you are willing to settle for. If you can get everything you ask for at the beginning, great! But only a fool would come out and say exactly what they need to get or they’ll walk away.

    A better analogy might be attorneys in a court room, since as Dana points out some have observed that Cruz was simply being lawyerly. If an attorney doesn’t announce during his or her opening statement every single detail of their strategy, is the attorney lying. Yes or no, tops116.

    And would you hire a lawyer who would throw case on the first day? Yes or no, tops116?

    Earlier I used the the poker analogy. If a poker player doesn’t volunteer exactly what cards he has in his hand, is the player lying? Again, only a simple yes or no answer will do, tops116.

    Because that’s all Cruz did; he simply didn’t show his cards.

    On the other hand Rubio and the gang of eight democrats were actually lying to me. I mentioned just a few of those blatant lies in my earlier comment.

    There’s a huge difference between what Cruz said and did to block the gang of eight bill from becoming law, and what the members of he gang of eight did to try to pull the wool over people’s eyes to get it passed. If you can’t see that then I want to play poker with you, too.

    I look forward to playing poker with people who have such high standards of “honesty” that they’re compelled to show me their cards.

    Steve57 (50e6a1)

  52. i think all these establishment attacks on harvard boy ted cruz are superlatively unfair

    pls to quote me

    happyfeet (831175)

  53. …But again, this fits comfortably with the idea that Cruz was calling the Democrats’ bluff: If they wanted legalization, they should have been willing to accept an amended bill that precluded citizenship but left the bill’s legalization component in place. Cruz also said: “I want immigration reform to pass.” But all this means is that Cruz wanted it to pass so he could get his components of an amended bill (the nixing of citizenship; beefed up security) passed, not because he wanted legalization. This is just more bluff-calling…

    From the Greg Sargent piece in the WaPo that Pat linked to @43. I didn’t want to quote from it at all, as you really need to read the whole thing, but I couldn’t resist quoting those few sentences as it’s right in line with my poker analogy. If you actually listened to what Cruz was saying then you’d know Cruz didn’t lie. He was simply careful with his words.

    I do not understand why people don’t actually listen to what people are actually saying. But that isn’t Cruz’s fault. If you actually listened it’s clear he wasn’t lying either then or now.

    Steve57 (50e6a1)

  54. “Perhaps the thing I like best about Cruz is that he is in command of himself, his message, and his campaign. In a profession that seems dominated by half-wits and bloviating fools, he displays the comportment of the rightful king. Is it, somehow, a shortcoming that Cruz won’t “take the bait”? Not in my world.”

    – ThOR

    That’s a solid point.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  55. The scariest thing about Trump is that he is a half-witted, bloviating fool who also seems in command of himself, his message, and his campaign. And he’s still winning. And that is a tremendous indictment of the American Right.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  56. meanwhile failbama and his goony effing man-daughter enjoyed a tasty hawaii pubic shave ice for like the bargain price of 7 million maladjusted hawaiian dollars

    winning

    happyfeet (831175)

  57. link

    yes yes always trust content from happyfeet

    happyfeet (831175)

  58. there’s something like a strong wind that’s coming over me

    happyfeet (831175)

  59. it’s got a hold of me

    happyfeet (831175)

  60. ikes!

    happyfeet (831175)

  61. rain is a good thang

    happyfeet (831175)

  62. Leviticus, a couple of points.

    First, a half-witted, bloviating fool and his money are soon parted. Especially if they get their money from daddy. Say whatever you want to say about Trump, but the private sector where he’s spent his life hasn’t parted him from his money.

    Second, his support doesn’t actually come from the right. Most conservatives are horrified by the prospect of a Trump presidency because he’s been a Democrat all his life, has said up until recently he mostly agrees with the Democrats, and outside of his stance on the 2nd Amendment, his tax plan, and his stance on controlling the border none of his positions are in any way conservative. He gets his support from a lot of independents. Even some blue collar Democrats support Trump. But only a few; perhaps as much as 10%.

    http://ballot-access.org/2015/12/12/zogby-poll-shows-trump-has-more-support-among-independents-than-among-republicans/

    This Zogby Poll, released December 9, seems to show that a larger proportion of independent voters support Donald Trump, compared to Republicans. The poll says 33% of Republicans support him, but 56% of independents support him.

    So if I’m right about the percentage of Democrats, most of the voters who support Trump are not Republicans. So how is this an indictment of the right?

    By the by, have you listened to the nonsense coming out of the mouth of the half-witted, bloviating fool currently occupying the WH?

    And on the other hand, how is not an indictment of the left that they’d vote for Hillary! even though she should be in prison? In fact, if she’s indicted (as she should be; it’s beyond doubt that she violated the Espionage Act with her home brew server) I still expect most Democrats to vote for her.

    She’s running on her “experience.” Her only experience besides directing the flow of money from rent-seekers seeking political favors to the Clinton Foundation is screwing things up. She has zero successes to her name. Yet her supporters keep mindlessly parroting those talking points, but when pressed can’t name a single solitary achievement of hers. Neither can Hillary! But they’ll vote for her.

    I’d say this election cycle has been a far greater indictment of the left.

    Steve57 (50e6a1)

  63. this idear what we live in a country in which exists “senior rubio advisors”

    it’s pitiful

    so cut it the eff out

    happyfeet (831175)

  64. no srsly stop it

    happyfeet (831175)

  65. Leviticus- Re-read post 59.

    mg (31009b)

  66. The newest liberal line of attack against Cruz is that he’s telling different stories to different people. How shocking! Do politicians really tailor their messages to different audiences?

    Of course, liberals know politicians vary their message depending on the audience. That’ss why it’s especially ironic that the same article compares what Cruz is doing to … Obama in 2008, who famously said one thing in public and, behind closed doors, told his donors that Americans bitterly cling to guns and religion. Maybe Cruz will win as easily as Obama did.

    DRJ (15874d)

  67. Cruz is darn clear how he stands. Rubio can’t shake the gang of eight. Even if he had Gale Sayers type moves.
    Next…

    mg (31009b)

  68. And that is a tremendous indictment of the American Right.

    Leviticus, your side of the ideological spectrum has totally — totally — lost any credibility with the junk of What’s-His-Name and other corrupt Democrats like Hillary.

    Oh, but of course, the heart of liberals at least is in the right place. [snerk]

    Her only experience besides directing the flow of money from rent-seekers seeking political favors to the Clinton Foundation is screwing things up.

    And skillfully dodging sniper fire on airport tarmacs.

    Mark (74fce8)

  69. DRJ (15874d) — 12/17/2015 @ 2:13 pm

    I read somewhere (I cannot remember, dangit!) about some English company that is supposed to be engaged in some sort of high-fallutin’ jimcrackery scientific process that can absolutely, positively identify key traits in specific target audiences so that one (their client, natch) may create a bespoke (custom) message that will play very well to said audience.

    Cruz’ campaign has retained these savants to do their thing for him and his messaging. So, yeah, Cruz is tailoring his message to different audiences. Is that a crime?

    felipe (56556d)

  70. I would think tailoring ones message for different audiences in politics is basically no different than what I did when I tailored my menus to different occasions and seasons in the restaurants. Give’em what they want.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  71. I wish Cruz would say this:

    1. I am against amnesty and citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already here — and have always been against these ideas.

    2. I support securing the border, including building a wall, increased border patrol and surveillance, and strengthen and complete the use of biometric identification and e-verify. In addition, I support enforcing the immigration laws we have, addressing asylum abuse, criminalizing visa overstays, preventing illegal immigrants from receiving benefits, refusing to accept immigrants who will financially burden America, requiring other countries to accept illegal immigrants we deport, and ending birthright citizenship. I have always supported these ideas.

    3. I support legal immigration — and have always supported it — although high unemployment and recent terror attacks have convinced me that we need to stop or limit immigration that poses a threat to our country until we can resolve these threats.

    4. I support having a discussion regarding legalization (but not citizenship or amnesty) for illegal immigrants who are already here, but only when we have accomplished the foregoing.

    Oh, wait, he already said this. It’s his immigration policy at his website.

    DRJ (15874d)

  72. It’s Cambridge Analytica, felipe. Here is an early article about how Cruz is working with it, and there have been many more since.

    DRJ (15874d)

  73. Cruz tailors his message to specific audiences.
    bill’s wife tailors her dialect to specific minorities.

    mg (31009b)

  74. It’s interesting to see how Rubio and his spokesmen have come after Cruz. Shouldn’t they be focused on Christie, Kasich, Bush, and other establishment Republicans? Those are the real threats to Rubio right now. It’s also interesting that Fox News is hitting Cruz so hard. Clearly Fox (or Murdoch) identifies with the GOPe. The harder they all hit, the more I think it will help Cruz just as it helped Trump. They are clueless about what’s happening to them.

    DRJ (15874d)

  75. That’s true, mg!

    DRJ (15874d)

  76. Also, it’s amazing that Adelson bought the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Harry Reid must be apoplectic, along with the R-J employees and editors. Well done, Mr. and Mrs. Adelson.

    DRJ (15874d)

  77. Thank you, Leviticus.

    I’d find it hard to argue that Trump’s success isn’t an indictment, but I’d say it is an indictment of the Republican Party and their toadies, though not so much “the American Right, whoever they are. His core promise is to bring to the Party and the White House the sensible and competent leadership he demonstrated as a giant of industry – it is the mindset of the corporate takeover. Trump’s message is not Right Wing so much as it is anti-establishment/anti-party. Gringrich, if you recall, tried a similar message four years ago, but with limited success. Not surprisingly, four years later the number of disaffected has grown and, along with it, the popularity of Trump’s anti-establishment message.

    And, fortunately for Trump, the flat-footed party regulars’ hysterical attempts to slap down Trump only succeeded in validating support for Trump. Just today I read yet another headline demanding that Cruz slap down Trump – those people never learn. Never. I thought Cruz’ response to the debate question about Trump’s suggestion that the borders be closed to Muslims speaks to Cruz’ virtuosity and almost perfectly summarizes my take on Trump: “I don’t agree, but I know why he said it.”

    If Trump becomes the party’s nominee, I’d bet dollars to donuts that Trump’s message will find plenty of resonance among disaffected Democrats, as well. Republicans aren’t the only ones feeling cheated by the political establishment.

    ThOR (a52560)

  78. Adelson announced the purchase today but it had been completed last week. He said he didn’t want it to be an issue in the debate in Las Vegas, but the newspaper hierarchy was already visibly concerned. I suspect the news that it’s Adelson was not well-received.

    DRJ (15874d)

  79. DRJ (15874d) — 12/17/2015 @ 3:04 pm

    Yes, that’s it! Thank you, DRJ. You got the monkey off my back. So many articles, so few reliable memory cells left.

    felipe (56556d)

  80. Oh, felipe, I know that feeling. Remembering is getting harder and harder to do!

    DRJ (15874d)

  81. Talking Points Memo on the Cruz immigration position in 2013:

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ted-cruz-immigration-poison-pill

    The people for the bill said Cruz was positioning himself to the right of Rubio but not a rejectionnist.

    “There weren’t many at that point who were taking the position that there could be no way to obtain any legal status. The question is: I — like Sen. Rubio — have always felt that if you are going to be here for 20 years then you ought to have the rights and responsibilities that come with citizenship,” Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) told reporters Wednesday on Capitol Hill. “I have always been for a path to citizenship, but the others that took the other position were saying ‘No, they should never be able to obtain citizenship’, and I understand that position but to say now that is not what you wanted …”

    Flake is saying there were few taking Cruz’s current position – no legalization. The argument was over whether citizenship should eventually be possible or not.

    I don’t think Cruz is saying now, naturalization, no; legalization yes, but only after border control, so that it would really be for the last time, or they could claim it. He’s saying no legalization no how no way.

    I think Lindsey Graham’s position in 2013, was to push off citizenship about as far as it could be pushed off without there being a big movement to change the law – that is, about 12 or 13 years after legalization.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  82. Apologies steve, I thought I was agreeing with you, in the choice of tactics against dread pirate roberts.

    narciso (732bc0)

  83. @steve57

    This Zogby Poll, released December 9, seems to show that a larger proportion of independent voters support Donald Trump, compared to Republicans. The poll says 33% of Republicans support him, but 56% of independents support him.

    Not 56% of all independents, but 56% of independents who say they will vote in a Republican primary!!

    Which makes sense. But doesn’t mean that Donald Trump is on the road to victory or that amajoroty of independents suppport him.

    Donald Trump attracts non-Republicans, while the others don’t have any particular support from non-Republicans, or not so many, and voting for Donald Trump is one thing that will cause people to decide to vote in the Republican primary.

    I recall a description of another poll result.

    This one said that Donald Trump came in 4th in Iowa among repeat Iowa caucus goers. That is, people who said they had attended at least one Iowaq Republican presidentail caucus in the past and intended to do so also in 2016.

    Sammy Finkelman (a69e24)

  84. Patterico said,

    “Arizona CJ:

    I think he is looking to avoid being demagogued by Hillary. He is definitely leaving his options open. And I have noticed how he ducks the issue of what to do with the 11 million. Of course I have. I think it’s probably smart for him to answer that way. The way he ducks it is convincing as a “ducking” can be — he points out that Big Media wants to focus on that issue when it is not really the pressing issue. And it’s not. It’s just where Hillary and her media friends want the conversation to be.”

    I hadn’t looked at it from the Hillary angle. I think you may have a good point there. Thanks.

    I suspect (always have) that Cruz isn’t as firm on immigration as I am, but I’m also not crazy enough to think that I’ll ever find a candidate (for any office, ever) that I totally agree with. All I really ask is they not be totally awful on my two main issues (National security/immigration, and fiscal), not be totally corrupt, and please don’t blow up the planet. (yeah, I know, I’m picky).

    At this juncture (it’s a long way to the AZ primary in late March) I think I’m most likely to vote Cruz, so long as he’s still in the race in a meaningful way.

    Arizona CJ (dabb2a)

  85. The intentionalism comment wasn’t a throwaway. Does Cruz’s intent get to dictate our attribution of meaning? Or do we look at the actual, written words of the amendment he drafted and supported?

    Just because he sacrificed his consistency on the altar of political expediency doesn’t mean we have to sacrifice ours.

    Leviticus (dfc5ce)

  86. 78. Apologies steve, I thought I was agreeing with you, in the choice of tactics against dread pirate roberts.

    narciso (732bc0) — 12/17/2015 @ 5:47 pm

    I certainly thought you were, too. As I said, I found your observation was very astute. I should have made myself more clear. After I quoted you, I was addressing tops116 again, and asking him if he is a concern troll.

    Steve57 (50e6a1)

  87. There are parallels across the atlantic, Boris Johnson and David cameron, still get a clue to save their lives, with everything from Tottenham to woolwich pointing the way. They put more diligence into crushing the ukip than the real pressing need.

    narciso (732bc0)

  88. Leviticus,

    Everything must be examined in context, and his words are not statutes. (A presidential candidate’s words are not everyday and should be held to a higher standard.) Remember: I always said that a principle of charity and looking to people’s intent is important in everyday speech. But one should also try to avoid phrasing things in ways where reasonable good faith people will take things in a way different than you intended. Always looking to CONTEXT though.

    Here, I suspect that Cruz emphasizes different but true parts of his actions to different groups depending on the audience, and also wants to leave some options open.

    Patterico (958cf0)

  89. I find either Rubio or Cruz acceptable, yet find both of them wanting on immigration (particularly H1-B visas which have no point but to depress US worker’s salaries towards those in the 3rd world).

    This pissing match over what they did or said a few years ago (which at least Rubio owns up to as a mistake) is truly boring. Especially since whichever one of the winds will sign some kind of normalization bill for some, but not all illegals. So will Trump, for that matter. It’s what Congress will pass. It will probably have a bar on citizenship for illegals.

    I REALLY do not understand how we can be arguing some fine point of what someone said in 2013, and ignore what they say now, all the while taking at face value Trump’s chaotic changes of position.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  90. *…whichever one of them winds up as president will sign …

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  91. @80, please go back to Cruz’s actual words and tell us how he hasn’t been consistent.

    Have you read the Sargent piece? He has gone back and looked at the actual words, and concluded that Cruz has been entirely consistent all along. Which squares with my memory, too.

    Perhaps you heard something else, such as how some members of the LHMFM characterized what Cruz said. And are somehow under the impression that Cruz is guilty of being inconsistent, maybe even lying, rather than concluding that the Democrats with bylines (as Prof. Reynolds at Instapundit puts it) was mischaracterizing Cruz’s words.

    Why don’t you start here. Cruz’s own words.

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/06/19/interview_senator_cruz_on_the_amnesty_bill

    The money quote:

    …CRUZ: Well, the Democrats want this for pure politics. Chuck Schumer was very candid in the Senate Judiciary Committee when he said, “If there is no citizenship, there can be no reform.” This is all about their endeavor. They want to grant amnesty, and they hope to get a lot more Democratic voters, or they want this to be voted down and use it as a political issue in 2014 and 2016…

    How anyone could have concluded Cruz intended his amendment as anything other than a poison pill I will never understand how anyone could have possibly concluded, listening to Cruz’s own words. Schumer made that comment about citizenship or nothing in the Judiciary committee. Cruz wanted to make the Democrats say that publicly. So he offered an amendment that never once said he was for legalization. It simply took citizenship off the table.

    Perhaps you won’t believe Ted Cruz’s own words, since those words appear on the website of Lucifer himself. Here’s a source hardly sympathetic to Cruz, or Limbaugh for that matter.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/ted-cruz-immigration_n_3238085.html

    …Cruz told conservative commentator Sean Hannity in April that he has “deep concerns” about allowing undocumented immigrants to eventually become citizens.

    “I think that is profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who have followed the rules, who have waited in line,” he said. “I think the reason that President Obama is insisting on a path to citizenship is that it is designed to be a poison pill to scuttle the whole bill, so he can have a political issue in 2014 and 2016. I think that’s really unfortunate.”..

    So, here he is sort of reversing roles. But the bottom line is still the same. If citizenship is off the table, that scuttles the bill. So Cruz said, “I’ll bite” (actually those are my words, not the Senator’s, although he was thinking along those lines). And he offered the one amendment that would scuttle the whole bill.

    His amendment simply didn’t touch the language in the bill about a pathway to legalization. Because it didn’t need to. Which doesn’t mean he was for legalization; his amendment never advocated giving illegal aliens a path to legalization (and he never said at any time he was in favor he was for even giving illegal aliens a path a path to legalization). Because his amendment didn’t need to take a stand one way or the other on that completely irrelevant side issue. He understood, and it was clear to me at the time, that all the Democrats public talking points about “bringing people out of the shadows” was complete BS. So he did only as much as he had to to torpedo the bill.

    How was any of this not clear to you, Leviticus? He wasn’t using hard words.

    Steve57 (50e6a1)

  92. * How anyone could have concluded Cruz intended his amendment as anything other than a poison pill I will never understand how anyone could have possibly concluded…

    I hate it when I make cut and paste errors.

    Steve57 (50e6a1)

  93. Trump’s chaotic changes of position.

    He’s a chameleon, a philosophical schizoid. He bad mouthed Romney in 2012 for being unkind — and a bit politically incorrect — about the issue of illegal immigration, and now, in 2015, he’s making it a big part of his platform. Of course, considering the crowd that dominates his social circle (ie, all the limousine liberals or super squish-squishes of Manhattan), maintaining one’s sanity and common sense in such a setting must be like navigating an obstacle course full of (ideological) land mines.

    The power of people voting with their feet throughout human history (with moving vans in today’s era or, originally, ships sailing across the Atlantic or Pacific, or, in the west, covered stagecoaches) is so tremendous, that political initiatives and entities alone will take a back seat to that force.

    What annoys me are all the people out there (many of them of the left (including What’s-His-Name, his wife Michelle and, in terms of where they went to school, Sasha and Malia) who pretend they’re not influenced by demographics, but are no less quick to load up the U-Haul when it suits them. That’s why a good portion of such people should be mandated — required — to live and enjoy the experience 24/7, 365 days a year in a community where their type of politics and politicians have had tremendous sway, particularly cities (or neighborhoods) known for being lovely sanctuaries.

    Mark (f713e4)

  94. Did anyone see this:
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/gop-leadership-caves-on-gosar-amendment.php

    From what little I can understand, the Repubs again act as if Dirty Harry had his gun up against their collective head.

    Conspiracy theories repeatedly look reasonable, more than all of those people being incompetent.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly) (deca84)

  95. 84. This pissing match over what they did or said a few years ago (which at least Rubio owns up to as a mistake)…

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 12/17/2015 @ 7:13 pm

    No, actually Rubio has never admitted to making any mistake.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/28/rubio-if-i-had-to-vote-again-on-my-gang-of-eight-immigration-bill-id-vote-no/

    I hope you guys appreciate how hard he’s been pandering to you lately. Because he’s pandering awfully hard…

    Asked directly how he would vote if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid brought the same bill to the floor now, he said he would vote no because passing the bill now [emphasis added] wouldn’t be productive.

    …In his interview with the Journal, the Florida Republican said he still supports immigration reform, and a spokesman made clear that Mr. Rubio doesn’t regret his support for last year’s Senate bill, which also called for enhanced border security and an overhaul to the legal visa system.

    That’s technically not a flip-flop. He’s not saying he’d vote differently if he could travel back in time, he’s saying that circumstances have changed politically such that a solution that might have worked yesterday won’t work now. He’s being nimble and pragmatic, not mealy-mouthed! But c’mon: Of course it’s a flip-flop. The reason he won’t say that he’d do it differently if he had it to do over again is because that would force him to admit an error in judgment, which is not something voters want to see in a would-be president…

    To me the differences between Cruz and Rubio and their positions on immigration are stark. Cruz was telling the world that for the Democrats, it was citizenship or bust. So he offered an amendment to block a pathway to citizenship to make that point plain. His amendment never advocated legalization; it simply said nothing about it. At no time did Cruz ever make any public statement saying he wanted to legalize illigal aliens. He never advocated it. And then he voted against the gang of eight bill.

    Rubio, on the other hand, ran for his Senate seat as a tea party conservative, and he told voters that he would not be in favor of a pathway to citizenship or even legalization for illegal aliens while they remained in this country. Illegal aliens would have to return to their own countries and start the process there, the right way. Once he was elected he stared working with the gang of eight on a bill to do exactly what he told the voters he wouldn’t do. And he went around the country trying to sell that bill in part as if allowing illegal aliens to stay in the US on a pathway to citizenship was somehow harder, slower, and more expensive than doing it the easy, fast, cheap old way. Require them to return to their countries to make it through the process. It was an insulting lie, and moreover the old way was what he told voters he favored when he needed their votes.

    Then in sharp contrast to Cruz he voted for the gang of eight bill. And he never once owned up to helping to write that bill, and voting for it, as a mistake.

    I don’t understand how drawing that distinction is somehow old news or boring. I realize it would be for Tommy Vietor, former Obama campaign van driver/Obama administration national security staffer, who said when asked about Benghazi:

    “Dude, this was like two years ago.”

    I don’t think anyone here is anything at all like Tommy Vietor.

    Steve57 (50e6a1)

  96. Steve57 – Congratulations on your stunningly clear and concise posts in this thread. Tremendous!

    I called this whole mess before the debate ended – especially the Fox part. It has been obvious for months that the word had come down that Cruz was not to be the guy. That Hume and Kelly led the charge immediately after the debate ended is the proof. Murdoch has always wanted to have pols whom he could rely upon to bend things his way when he needed them. Cruz is not such a pol. So, in my best Caiaphas voice in J.C. Superstar, “He is daaaaaangerousssss!” Fox will do what it can to tarnish Cruz and it will become more and more obvious. Brent Baier going after him now? Yup.

    As for trusting Rubio or Cruz…what are the chances Rubio would pull what Ryan has pulled on the budget omnibus, and what are the chances Cruz would? End of discussion.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  97. Thanks for compliments, Ed. Again, and amazingly, somebody calls my points concise.

    I agree with you; Rubio can’t be trusted and is likely to act similarly to Ryan. And I take this position for several reasons. First, he sold out his own voters once. He told them when he was running for the Senate that he was against X (a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens that allowed them to stay in the country while they pursued it) and could only support Y (they have to return to their own countries and follow the same process as all legal immigrants have to). Because he had to; Crist was running on amnesty.

    Then after he was safely in office, he helped author a bill that established X. What he said he was against when he needed votes. And then he ran around the trying to sell that bill by lying to voters that X was so much better for the that “broken” old Y.

    He has never acknowledged authoring and supporting the gang of eight bill was a mistake. In fact, he has said very clearly that he still thinks what he did was the right thing to do in 2013. It’s just that things have changed. What’s changed? Well for one thing he learned that Obama can’t be trusted to enforce the law. Really? I’m supposed to believe he’s that stupid that he couldn’t figure out Obama can’t be trusted until we were well into Obama’s second term?

    I think this analysis from 2014 is still spot on.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/18/rubio-on-immigration-i-think-republicans-have-reached-a-point-of-irreconcilable-differences-with-obama/

    …He doesn’t say explicitly that he can no longer support immigration reform until O’s out of office but that’s clearly the upshot of the point about trust and “irreconcilable differences,” no? If you don’t trust the chief executive to enforce the laws you’ve passed and there’s no way to rebuild that trust, then logically you’re a no on reform until 2017…

    …Is it really true, at this point, that establishment Republicans would reject Rubio if he voted no on a new immigration deal this summer? I don’t think so. On the contrary — so long as passage was assured I think they’d encourage him to vote no, precisely because they realize that he needs to rebuild his conservative cred. Beltway Republicans might hate the base but they hate low turnout in elections even more. And by quarterbacking the Gang of Eight bill in the media last year, Rubio’s already proved to them that he’ll be a loyal ally on amnesty if/when he’s president. Having proved his good faith, he’s now free to oppose future immigration deals in the name of protecting himself politically, provided as his opposition doesn’t put any deal at risk. Otherwise he really will have to suck it up and vote yes…

    In other words, the donor class is rallying to Rubio’s side and helping him smear Cruz because Cruz isn’t going to give them what they want. Amnesty. And Rubio will give them amnesty. But they also know that Rubio needs to do a lot of political posturing to fool us knuckle draggers into believing he’s the same conservative he said he was in 2010. Because without the base turning out to vote for him, he won’t be in a position to sell us out in 2017. Again, just like he tried to sell out his conservative base in 2013.

    And just like Ryan is doing now with that atrocity of an Omnibus.

    We’re supposed to be stupid enough to fall for this farce.

    Steve57 (50e6a1)

  98. Doc @89, Occam’s Razor tells me that they repeatedly “lose” to Obama because they actually support the liberal agenda. They don’t oppose it because they don’t want to oppose it. They want to give Obama everything he wants, because they want it, too.

    But, like Rubio, they have to fool us yokels bitterly clinging to our guns and our Bibles and our xenophobia that they’ll act like an actual opposition party every couple of years when elections roll around.

    “Really! This time, this time finally, voting for Republicans is going to make a difference.” As they chuckle to themselves about how easily duped we unwashed Neanderthals are.

    Steve57 (50e6a1)

  99. salt & pepper
    black & white
    ryan & zuckerberg
    oak branch & rope

    mg (31009b)

  100. ryan will always be the main butcher in planned parenthood.
    what a creep.
    The republican party is now done.

    mg (31009b)

  101. News Flash…
    Republicans want babies dead for baby parts, way to fund this program you murderous pukes.

    mg (31009b)

  102. If I could I would drag ryan behind a ford tractor until his islamic beard was rubbed off.

    mg (31009b)

  103. he’s a disgusting and loathsome person

    punkass lil cheesedoodle

    i hope he has a crappy red cup season and every time he tries to go shopping everyone stops and tells him how much they hate his loathsome ass

    happyfeet (831175)

  104. ryan is a muslim loving, baby part selling, American hating, republican.

    mg (31009b)

  105. Hey Beldar, are you standing by your man?

    mg (31009b)

  106. If Paul Ryan is out to cripple the GOP he’s well on his way. His budget is a wedge that will anger, no, infuriate, and alienate Conservatives to the point they’ll either stay home or vote third party.

    There’s already a deep split, Trump is far and away the leading candidate and way too many otherwise solid GOP voters say they’ll never vote for him. That’s trouble on the horizon.

    ropelight (3d922b)

  107. “Some of you are swallowing”

    Fox is shameless agitprop. Their problem, however, is Roobs is sinking as fast as Trump and Cruz combined. Rand Paul seems to have made his candidacy about stopping Rubio, and is delivering body blows along with Palin, Malkin, et alia.

    DNF (ffe548)

  108. 101, 102. Ryan has taken the Faustus gambit, an antiChrist homoculus.

    DNF (755a85)

  109. I haven’t read all the comments (I have to go to work) but Christie got some mileage in the debate by pointing out that Rubio and Cruz were arguing these matters as thought there was no reality, just debating points. He made a few people, I don’t know if enough, take another look at his assertion that this is why governors (him) are better candidates.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  110. Doc @89, Occam’s Razor tells me that they repeatedly “lose” to Obama because they actually support the liberal agenda. They don’t oppose it because they don’t want to oppose it. They want to give Obama everything he wants, because they want it, too.

    Steve57 (50e6a1) — 12/18/2015 @ 12:09 am

    It’s probably a combination of that and that they think Obama will veto the budget and they’ll get blamed for a shutdown, which is true because they don’t have any ability to explain things in a way that cuts through the Democrats’ lies that would be on the TV day after day.

    Gerald A (5dca03)

  111. I remembered that, Dr. Mike, and I could not remember who said it. I have a Christie block — I like him less than Trump. But, yes, he’s right. Cruz, Rubio, and Rand are lightweights. Three first-term Senators who talk good but have not shown that they can do anything except debate. Debate fruitlessly and get sidelined by the likes of Reid and McConnell. I’ve had that problem with them since they announced their candidacies.

    I’m leaving it in the hands of God. If the Cubs have won the World Series come Election Day, I’ll vote for Trump. Otherwise, I’ll leave that part of the ballot blank and vote for whomever is running against Mark Kirk.

    nk (dbc370)

  112. No, actually Rubio has never admitted to making any mistake.

    And then you go on to miss my simple point in detail by parsing the words “admit” and “mistake”.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  113. Cruz, Rubio, and Rand are lightweights. Three first-term Senators who talk good but have not shown that they can do anything except debate.

    nk (dbc370) — 12/18/2015 @ 6:00 am

    I’m not sure what else they can demonstrate. Somebody asked Cruz recently about his alleged inability to actually accomplish anything, i.e. get legislation passed. Cruz destroyed that by pointing out that blocking bad legislation is a positive, which he has accomplished and is the essence of true conservative thinking.

    I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

    This idea that your success in a legislative body is measured by the quantity of bills passed is in fact highly un-conservative. Cruz gets that, which is why he and Rand Paul (and maybe Rubio) are the only real conservatives in the race. Also maybe Santorum but it’s like he’s not even in the race.

    Before we can turn the country in a more conservative direction, we need someone who can actually explain conservative ideas, and to do that the candidate must first of all be someone who actually thinks about those things. Goldwater and Reagan are the only two nominees the party has had who did that. Cruz would be the third.

    I could vote for Christie if he’s the nominee, if he pledges to reverse Obama’s executive order legalizing of millions of illegals and gives a clear indication he’d nominate conservatives to SCOTUS. I don’t get the clear sense he’d do either.

    Gerald A (5dca03)

  114. No argument, Gerald, but a BUT. A President cannot just block and tackle, he has to run, pass, score, and make sure the team is eating right and getting enough practice, too. That the three young’uns are good at loyal opposition is no indication at all that they’ll be any good at running things.

    nk (dbc370)

  115. Not that being a governor necessarily prepares someone for the Presidency. It definitely did not prepare 43. Texas has a weak governor/strong legislature system and the Shrub never arose above it as President.

    nk (dbc370)

  116. That the three young’uns are good at loyal opposition is no indication at all that they’ll be any good at running things.

    nk (dbc370) — 12/18/2015 @ 6:32 am

    I don’t believe anyone can demonstrate that from the Senate. The idea of someone who can run things as the big qualification for office is Trump’s theme. As some people have pointed out on these pages, the whole idea of the President turning things around by doing a superior job running the leviathan, rather than downsizing it, is doomed to failure. That also illustrates why Trump is fundamentally un-conservative.

    Did anyone catch in the debate where Trump said instead of spending all that money on the Iraq war we could have spent it domestically – as opposed to saving the money? Freaking Bernie Sanders would say the identical thing.

    Gerald A (5dca03)

  117. We never know who would be good at running things. Remember Jimmie Carter? He was a Governor and nuclear engineer who used his “talents” to micromanage the White House tennis court.

    What is important is to pick someone who has a guiding philosophy. Obama has one, although I disagree with it, and he has accomplished many of his liberal goals. Cruz has one, too. IMO more than any other current or recent Republican candidate, Cruz understands and is committed to conservative ideology.

    DRJ (15874d)

  118. George W Bush was a strong wartime President and a weak domestic President. Perhaps that has more to do with the fact he isn’t andndver has been a strong ideological or intellectual conservative. He’s a Dallas conservative, where Republicans are delighted to grow government as long as it pays off for conservatives.

    DRJ (15874d)

  119. The thought just struck me, as I walked outside to enjoy Chicago’s first below-freezing day this year: What on Earth made Jeb think that the American people would want every other President to be a Bush? 41, 43, and 45 too? It’s nice to have family pride, but seriously, what is so distinguished about the Bush brand? Talk about living in a bubble.

    nk (dbc370)

  120. He was pressured into it. It’s a brand now and good sons never let down the brand.

    DRJ (15874d)

  121. Jeb’s participation trivializes the whole process

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  122. Speaking of supporting the brand, the Washington Cartel brand is alive and well.

    DRJ (15874d)

  123. Just called the Republican National Committee in Washington DC (202) 863-8500 to complain about the budget legislation. The automated system connected me to a mail box which was already full. The bastards know voters are outraged and instead of listening to complaints the party’s top officials have turned a deaf ear. They don’t care what grassroots GOP voters think. They’re in charge for now, and they won’t brook any opposition.

    It’s damn the voters and love and kisses to Democrat spendthrifts and ISIS collaborators.

    ropelight (3d922b)

  124. Perhaps that has more to do with the fact he isn’t andndver has been a strong ideological or intellectual conservative.

    Best summed up by his belief that the word “conservative” needed to be qualified with the adjective “compassionate.”

    Mark (f713e4)

  125. That bill would never get signed in my administration,
    I’m looking to see if anyone will take up my position of never signing an omnibus bill.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly) (deca84)

  126. ryan should be shoved off a cliff in a wheel chair.

    mg (31009b)

  127. ryan gets standing ovation from democrats.
    Pathetic.

    mg (31009b)

  128. 108. No, actually Rubio has never admitted to making any mistake.

    And then you go on to miss my simple point in detail by parsing the words “admit” and “mistake”.

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 12/18/2015 @ 6:04 am

    No, it’s Rubio that missed your simple point.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/28/rubio-if-i-had-to-vote-again-on-my-gang-of-eight-immigration-bill-id-vote-no/

    …In his interview with the Journal, the Florida Republican said he still supports immigration reform, and a spokesman made clear that Mr. Rubio doesn’t regret his support for last year’s Senate bill

    I’m not parsing anything. Where do you see Rubio “admit” a “mistake?”

    I see him saying through his spokesman that he “does not regret” doing what he did. Which in standard English is the polar opposite of “admit” a “mistake.”

    And if he becomes President he will do the exact same thing again.

    According to my dictionary

    Steve57 (50e6a1)

  129. 109. …Before we can turn the country in a more conservative direction, we need someone who can actually explain conservative ideas, and to do that the candidate must first of all be someone who actually thinks about those things…

    Gerald A (5dca03) — 12/18/2015 @ 6:26 am

    I completely agree. But getting back to your point @106 the reason the GOP establishment, now including Ryan, doesn’t “have any ability to explain things in a way that cuts through the Democrats’ lies that would be on the TV day after day” is because they can’t explain conservative ideas is because they have none. You and I know the Democrats are lying. The inside-the-beltway GOP establishment nod their heads in agreement. In fact, if you recall Boehner’s shameful victory tour after he helped the Media/Democratic complex defeat the “obstructionist” conservatives, he enjoyed telling the conservatives “I told you so.”

    http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/24/news/la-pn-john-boehner-tonight-show-20140123

    Boehner on ‘Tonight Show': Shutdown was a ‘predictable disaster’
    January 24, 2014|By Michael A. Memoli

    House Speaker John A. Boehner called last fall’s government shutdown a “very predictable disaster” that he warned his fellow Republicans to avoid, but ultimately went along with it at the behest of colleagues intent on a standoff with President Obama over his healthcare law…

    The Vichy caucus of the GOP is fully onboard with the Democratic party agenda, as evidenced by this Omnibus abortion.

    Speaking of abortion.

    The only thing that John Kasich adds to this election cycle is that he illustrates the point I’m making about the Vichy wing of the party. They want to surrender. How many times has he lectured the rest of us about how we can’t be good Christians unless we’re for expanding social welfare programs like he did by expanding Medicaid in Ohio. Unilaterally I might add. Over the head of his legislature which wisely refused refused to sign on to bust their state’s budget.

    It’s a fiscal disaster for Ohio, by the way. The Medicaid expansion will be $1B over budget in the first 18 months, and after 2017 things will only get worse as the feds will stop paying 100% benefit costs (they do not pick up the administrative costs). Ah, but the feds do pick up 62% of the benefit costs of the traditional Medicaid recipients. So what is Kasich’s government do? Play a shell game with the money by covering the cost overruns for the able bodied adults who signed up for expanded Medicaid by shoving pregnant women, children with disabilities, people actually below the poverty line, etc., to the back of the line. Seriously.

    http://www.highlandcountypress.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=20&ArticleID=28454

    Ohio’s Obamacare expansion has cost $4 billion

    …“In just a year and a half, Kasich has put more able-bodied adults on Medicaid welfare than his administration thought would ever enroll,” Ingram said.

    He noted that in Kasich’s last two budgets, the governor “has proposed slashing funding to pediatric hospitals and kicking pregnant women off of the program.”

    “At this point, one thing is clear: Ohio’s Medicaid expansion costs are rapidly spiraling out of control,” Ingram said…

    The bill will come due; you can’t hide it forever with budget gimmicks. I’m sure St. Peter will reward him for trying to hide the true costs to Ohio taxpayers of his Medicaid expansion by cutting funding for children to cover the out-of-control costs of all all the new, able-bodied enrollees.

    Which is the point. Kasich’s argument that you can’t be a good Christian and oppose Medicaid expansion is exactly the same argument Hillary! has made in the past about how you can’t be a Republican and a Christian.

    When the Vichy Republicans lecture conservatives that social issues are a loser for the party and we should ignore them entirely, they know perfectly well the left isn’t going to ignore social issues. The reason the inside-the-beltway establishment GOP wants social conservatives to shut up about social issue isn’t that they want to take them off the table. It’s because, as Kasich helpfully illustrates, they agree with the left on social issues.

    The upshot is as we see in this omnibus spending bill we can’t even defund a non-governmental entity like PP. We’ll be funding PP forever. Social issues are spending issues. You simply can’t be a fiscal conservative and ignore social issues. Because by abandoning the field on social issues to the left they determine our spending priorities. And that’s how the Vichy Republicans want it. They don’t want to fight the left over social issues. They want to ally themselves with the left with whom they agree on social issues and fight conservatives.

    How can anyone expect the Vichy Republicans to make the conservative case for anything when they agree with the left that there isn’t one?

    Steve57 (50e6a1)

  130. I have a question only tangentially related to your post. I tried to comment/RT one of your tweets about Cruz with a diehard Rubio supporter, but you appear to have blocked me on Twitter. Pretty sure I don’t remember actually attacking you on Twitter, so I was genuinely curious as to why you blocked me.

    Thanks.

    physics geek (6669a4)

  131. I usually block only people who attack me or side with other people in long-running and tiresome arguments. (Though I also routinely block mindless Donald Chump supporters.) Are you quite sure you did neither? If you can assure me you did not — or even that you will not in the future — I will unblock you.

    Patterico (7d6be1)

  132. I don’t remember the circumstances of the blocking so I am just giving you general categories.

    Patterico (7d6be1)

  133. Pretty sure I did neither. As for Trump, I said early on that I can’t see myself voting for him because I consider him a dangerous clown.

    I have tried to engage some in the ongoing Cruz-Rubio flame wars, but I’ve tried to play the mediator which, apparently, is a futile effort. Pretty sure that I haven’t attacked anyone personally either, except for some anti-Semitic jerk some months back.

    I will admit that I follow some who might not be on the best terms with you, but I cannot help what other people do. However, I’ve tried to be respectful in the past, so I’m still not certain what I might have said that tipped the scales unless I RTed something someone else said that ticked you off.

    In any event, it’s your account, so do as you wish, but I’d appreciate an unblock, if you’re so inclined.

    physics geek (c5e171)

  134. I didn’t show you as blocked. Try again?

    Patterico (7d6be1)

  135. Hmm. I see that you followed me, which did fix the block problem. However, if you hadn’t blocked me in the past, I wonder if it’s a Twitter glitch. The reason I say this is that I’ve been blocked by a few other people recently who I’ve been on more or less friendly terms with. Maybe it’s another one of those undocumented Twitter features. In any event, thanks for the unblock. It’s appreciated.

    physics geek (6669a4)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4664 secs.