Patterico's Pontifications

12/23/2015

Trashing Politico’s Utter Hack Job: Cruz Behind Closed Doors Exactly the Same as Cruz in Public

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:09 am



The hackiest of hack attacks on Ted Cruz has just been published at Politico by hackmeister general Mike Allen. The piece can be read here (safe Google cache link, since I don’t link Politico) and is titled What Ted Cruz Said Behind Closed Doors:

In June, Ted Cruz promised on NPR that opposition to gay marriage would be “front and center” in his 2016 campaign.

Actually, let’s stop right there, because Mike Allen is already lying to you. Or more, accurately, he is repeating an NPR lie that he either didn’t verify, or is actively misrepresenting. In June, NPR ran a piece titled Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be ‘Front And Center’ In 2016 Campaign. But I actually bothered to listen to the interview, and that’s not what he said. Here’s the “front and center” language in context. Speaking of the gay marriage decision and the ObamaCare decision, Cruz said:

This week in response to both of these decisions, I have called for another constitutional amendment – this one that would make members of the Supreme Court subject to periodic judicial retention elections. As a very real check, 20 states have retention elections they’ve put in place, if judges overstep their bounds, violate the constitution, then the people have a check to remove them from office. I’ve called for that change. That is very much front and center something I intend to campaign on. And marriage and religious liberty are going to be integral, I believe, to motivating the American people to come out and vote for what’s ultimately restoring our constitutional system.

Again: “both of these decisions” means the ObamaCare decision and the gay marriage decision.

In the same interview, Cruz also talks about amendments to redefine marriage as between a man and a woman, and stripping the courts of jurisdiction over marriage. But those proposals are not the subject of the “front and center” language, which relates to judicial retention elections. Cruz was not talking about placing “opposition to gay marriage” front and center. He was talking about responding to a lawless gay marriage decision, and the ObamaCare decision, by proposing a way to check the power of lawless judges: with a constitutional amendment authorizing judicial retention elections.

In other words, Allen lies to you in the first sentence of his piece. More from Allen:

But in December, behind closed doors at a big-dollar Manhattan fundraiser, the quickly ascending presidential candidate assured a Republican gay-rights supporter that a Cruz administration would not make fighting same-sex marriage a top priority.

In a recording provided to POLITICO, Cruz answers a flat “No” when asked whether fighting gay marriage is a “top-three priority,” an answer that pleased his socially moderate hosts but could surprise some of his evangelical backers.

While Cruz’s private comments to a more moderate GOP audience do not contradict what the Republican Texas senator has said elsewhere, they demonstrate an adeptness at nuance in tone and emphasis that befits his Ivy League background. Indeed, the wording looks jarring when compared with the conservative, evangelical rhetoric he serves at his rallies, which have ballooned in size and excitement as he has moved to the front of the pack in Iowa.

How many specific examples does Allen provide of “conservative, evangelical rhetoric” that supposedly contradicts the tone of Cruz’s comments at the Manhattan fundraiser? If you guessed “zero” then you’re paying attention. Yet Allen runs around collecting quotes from people claiming to be astounded at Cruz’s alleged doubletalk:

A well-known Republican operative not affiliated with a 2016 campaign said by email when sent Cruz’s quote: “Wow. Does this not undermine all of his positions? Abortion, Common Core — all to the states? … Worse, he sounds like a slick D.C. politician — says one thing on the campaign trail and trims his sails with NYC elites. Not supposed to be like that.”

. . . .

[A]n adviser to a rival campaign, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wants to stay behind the scenes, said the Manhattan comments could help opponents portray Cruz as “calculating” at a time voters are rewarding authenticity.

“There’s an Iowa Ted and a New York Ted,” the adviser said. “He sounds different behind closed doors.”

Before proceeding any further with Allen’s breathlessly tendentious characterizations, let’s look at what Cruz actually said at the fundraiser, in full context:

Q: Can I ask you a question? So, I’m a big supporter. And the only issue I really disagree with you about is gay marriage. And I’m curious: Given all the problems that the country’s facing — like ISIS, the growth of government — how big a priority is fighting gay marriage going to be to a Cruz administration?

CRUZ: “My view on gay marriage is that I’m a constitutionalist and marriage is a question for the states. And so I think if someone wants to change the marriage laws of their state, the way to do so is convince your fellow citizens — and change them democratically, rather than five unelected judges. … Being a constitutionalist is integral to my approach to every other issue. So that I’m very devoted to.

Q: So would you say it’s like a top-three priority for you — fighting gay marriage?

CRUZ: “No. I would say defending the Constitution is a top priority. And that cuts across the whole spectrum — whether it’s defending [the] First Amendment, defending religious liberty, stopping courts from making public policy issues that are left to the people. …

I also think the 10th Amendment of the Constitution cuts across a whole lot of issues and can bring people together. People of New York may well resolve the marriage question differently than the people of Florida or Texas or Ohio. … That’s why we have 50 states — to allow a diversity of views. And so that is a core commitment.

Note carefully the references to “five unelected judges” and his conviction that if you want to change this policy, “the way to do so is convince your fellow citizens.”

Now, let’s look at the NPR piece in which Cruz supposedly said something different in public. The transcript is here, but I find this passage interesting:

CRUZ: Well, look, this country is always changing. But — but my point about the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court didn’t wait for the country to change. Five unelected lawyers overruled 320 million Americans. Justice Scalia in dissent said these five unelected lawyers in robes have become the rulers of 320 million Americans.

Steve, you may well on policy grounds agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. If you had a referendum, you may well vote for gay marriage. Well, under our Constitution, there’s a way to make policy changes. The proper way to make policy changes is for you to convince your fellow citizens that there is a better policy outcome than the current one. And then in state legislatures, for those state legislatures to vote that change.

How different he sounds here! In public, Cruz decried the actions of “five unelected lawyers.” But behind closed doors, this suddenly became “five unelected judges.” WHICH IS IT, MR. CRUZ?? In public, Cruz told the hayseed yokels at National Public Radio: “The proper way to make policy changes is for you to convince your fellow citizens.” But get him behind closed doors with some elite Manhattan donors with fat wallets, and all of sudden he says that if you want to change marriage laws, “the way to do so is convince your fellow citizens.” OK, so the words are exactly the same. BUT DO YOU HEAR HOW DIFFERENT THE TONE IS???!!!!1!!!!1!!

Even worse, in June, Cruz described the need to rein in lawless judges as something he would put “front and center” in his campaign. But now, he is telling Manhattan donors that a commitment to constitutionalism is “a top priority” and a “core commitment.”

Wow, Mike Allen has really revealed Ted Cruz as a devious snake-oil salesman, hasn’t he?!

23 Responses to “Trashing Politico’s Utter Hack Job: Cruz Behind Closed Doors Exactly the Same as Cruz in Public”

  1. This is a big deal to me.

    Patterico (2e1e5e)

  2. Not surprised that they lie,
    but very appreciative of the time you have taken to document the answer to this particular lie.

    Maybe you should put out a YouTube video on what and how to explain to all of one’s nieces and nephews when they come home on college break…

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

  3. This is a great post. I hope it gets linked a lot.

    DRJ (15874d)

  4. Defund NPR and PBS!

    Sic Semper Tyrannus (889929)

  5. Every “news” headline on Bing’s front page is either Cruz is crazy/evil/stupid, Trump is crazy/evil/stupid or Sanders is a hero with impressive endorsements (like rapper Lil D!) I finally turned Bing news off today.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  6. Given that Allen has been dubbed “the man the White House wakes up t”o, this post is important to help break the myth as it reveals he is less than honest in his reporting. And lazy.

    Dana (86e864)

  7. Hopefully Cruz will drive them so rabid and be able to handle them on live TV that even the most uninformed will see who is being reasonable and who is losing it,
    well, at least enough of them to make 50%+ of the vote and an electoral college landslide.

    IMO, it really is an issue of whether we are a country that goes by the rule of law as laid out in the Constitution,
    or not.

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

  8. OK – NPR is distorting what Cruz said, and Mike Allen is too trusting to double-check that.

    Ted Cruz never focused on same sex marriage. Ted Cruz talked about that, and also religious liberty, meaning the ability to not participate in, or sanction in any way, birth control or abortion, or any kind of procedure that is nowadays often paid for by medical insurance, if someone was opposed to that procedure on moral/ethical/religious grounds.

    But they were only examples of things other people didn’t like.

    Ted Cruz was speaking to donors, and therefore spent some time talking about the prospects for his campaign’s success, and that was the point of his argument.

    He argued that calling for a constitutional amendment that would allow Supreme Court justices to be voted out, would motivate people to turn out. And that’s why he, and maybe not some other Republican, would win the general election. (So give him, and not some other candidate, your campaign money.)

    Not that that really would happen – the amendment I mean – and certainly not that as a result of that amendment or anything any particular ruling by the Supreme Court would get reversed, but this gimmick would motivate the rubes to vote. Why? Because he would stress it.

    Anybody who didn’t like anything the Supreme Court did would vote, and not stay home, and the extra turnout would cause him to win.

    That’s what he was saying.

    A fantasy.

    BTW, an amendment limiting terms to 18 years might have more chance, but remember, this is a gimmick that supposedly would turn out the vote.

    And the real rubes Ted Cruz had in mind were the donors he was speaking to. Because he isn’t going to run on this issue, I think.

    Now Mike Allen or NPR prefers a standard “we’re right and you’re wrong” attack to anything else, so this was misrepresented as an all out call for the abolition of same sex marriage. Because that’s very politically incorrect.

    It’s like they can’t understand the difference between voting out a Supreme Court justice, disagreeing with the decisions, and opposition to the underlying piece of policy.

    This gets turned into Ted Cruz is saying different things to different people, but what they want to prove is that he was saying to one group that he’d be against something social liberals were for. I guess the idea is to turn people inclined to vote Democrat against him.

    But still, is Ted Cruz making a constitutional amendment instituting judicial retention elections front and center in his campaign?

    This is the first I hear about it.

    Is that supposed to happen only in the general election??

    Since this is aimed at people who traditionally vote Republican in presidential elections wouldn’t it make sense to mention it earlier, even if only to have some credibility later?

    No, Ted Cruz was telling people that he’d get higher turnout with this constitutional amendment gimmick because the rubes would think something really could happen, but I think Ted Cruz thought the true rubes are his donors! Because this constitutional amendment will not be heard from again..

    It may be buried somewhere on his web site, but it won’t be front and center in his campaign. When he needs more donors he’ll come up with another reason he will win – and by that time he would not need any argument saying he is the Republican most uniquely capable of winning the general election.

    Sammy Finkelman (67f658)

  9. there’s also a Kentucky Ted

    it where he go to do the snuffles

    happyfeet (831175)

  10. Liars find that having lied they must continue to lie. Mike Allen is making a virtue out of necessity. Sadly, the fools who listen to NPR will take his consistency as proof that that he’s telling it like it is.

    By the way, if you update to Windows 10, be prepared to reset your default in order to undo BING and all the other MS horse scat.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  11. lying liars lie… #Unexpectedly!

    film @ 11

    redc1c4 (72c103)

  12. The dichotomy I see with Cruz is different.

    He has campaigned for years as a Tea Party, small government, rule-of-law kind of guy. Then he cozies up to Trump, who is a big government, crony capitalist, my-way-or-the-highway kind of guy*. What gives?

    _________
    *Matter of fact, as far as big government and rule of lar are concerned, there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Trump and Obama, and Trump may be worse.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  13. I finally turned Bing news off today.

    What is this “Bing” of which you speak?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  14. I read Politico when it first appeared but gave up pretty quickly. I can get the same bias at the LA Times and it is delivered to my door. (My wife reads it).

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  15. “in order to undo BING”

    I think Bing is a little better than Google.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  16. FWIW,
    I don’t think Cruz has cozied up to Trump as avoiding clashing with him.
    I think Cruz is running against Clinton, and recognizes that he and Trump, as different as they may be, are both after the “I’ve had it” vote.

    Of course that could be my projection, as that is what I think they should all do, run against Hillary, not each other, and see who is most impressive at it.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly) (deca84)

  17. Patterico, thanks for the fisking. I’m not surprised.

    The majority of Lefties and LIV types just want headlines to make decisions.

    As I have been saying, we are bumper stickers stuck to clown cars these days.

    Fact is, repeating a lie over and over again is part of the New Reality.

    (this is why I object to silly name calling and such—it’s part of meme-warfare)

    And further, the Left doesn’t care about the truth, so long as a lie serves its purposes. Like Reid out and out lying in a fashion to interfere with a Presidential election, and then crowing about it.

    Welcome to Jonah Goldberg’s nightmare.

    Simon Jester (ebd364)

  18. Furthermore, Patterico, I predict that some piece of news will get dropped that suggests Cruz “isn’t conservative enough.” It won’t be true, but the meme will get spread. I will bet you money folks here will do so, too.

    It’s all about Narrative.

    Simon Jester (ebd364)

  19. Given that Allen has been dubbed “the man the White House wakes up t”o

    Reggie’s been replaced?

    Dave (in MA) (b4894f)

  20. no, Cruz chooses not to insult a potential voting bloc, the ones that sat out the 2012 elections for the most part,

    lets stop calling it narrative, it’s bald faced lies, slander and unpersonning, the Journolists primary job,

    narciso (732bc0)

  21. Excellent takedown.

    When the media can’t manage to dig up dirt on a target, they invent the dirt.

    Brad (1629cc)

  22. Harry Reid should be brought to justice for his alleged pedophile activities. So many little boys, so little time left for the alleged Searchlight Sodomizer.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  23. Another facet of Ted Cruz:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu_hkbBueOg

    And if you like classical music, this version of the Bolero will surprise you!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUeysGoPFTk

    Enjoy!

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1042 secs.