In tonight’s debate, Ted Cruz summarized his immigration plan, and began it by saying: “We’re going to build a wall.” Donald Trump got some laffs by lifting up his arms as if to say: “Like I’ve been saying.”

But Ted Cruz talked about building a wall before Donald Trump even announced his candidacy.

On March 27, 2015, Shikha Dalmia from Reason.com wrote in The Week that Ted Cruz wanted to build a wall on the border:

Cruz wants to establish “100 percent operational control” of America’s southern border by completing a double-layer fence on the entire 2,000 miles, tripling the size of the border patrol, and quadrupling the number of helicopters and cameras.

Dalmia was critical of Cruz:

What’s ironic about Cruz’s crusade to build a wall between two free — and friendly — people, divert billions of taxpayer dollars to militarize the border, and abrogate the civil rights of Americans is that he is doing so while vowing to “stand for liberty.”

But the thing to note about the story was the date: March 27, 2015.

Trump didn’t even announce his run until nearly three months later, on June 16, 2015.

Trump spent a lot of time in recent weeks whining that Cruz stole his “build a wall” idea. But, aside from the fact that people have talked about building a wall forever, the fact remains: Ted Cruz was talking about it weeks before Donald Trump announced his presidential run.

So there.

Actual quotes taken from the transcript of tonight’s debate:

ONE: "And let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing."

— Patterico (@Patterico) February 7, 2016

TWO: "I would add this. Let's dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing."

— Patterico (@Patterico) February 7, 2016

THREE: "This notion that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing is just not true. He knows exactly what he's doing."

— Patterico (@Patterico) February 7, 2016

FOUR: "I think anyone who believes that Barack Obama isn't doing what he's doing on purpose doesn't understand what we're dealing with here"

— Patterico (@Patterico) February 7, 2016

FIVE: "We are not facing a president that doesn't know what he's doing. He knows what he is doing."

— Patterico (@Patterico) February 7, 2016

These are five separate quotes. No joke. And the lines were delivered amidst an attack from Chris Christie that Rubio was giving a “memorized 25-second speech.”

Ouch. This is going to hurt.

He’s just really not all that bright, folks.

UPDATE: As a bonus: here is the absurd botched introduction:

Here's that botched #GOPDebate introduction in all its gloryhttps://t.co/KOBE3dpeGv

— Mashable (@mashable) February 7, 2016

UPDATE x2: Updated the post to add a fifth one. And here is a brutal video capturing four of them:

UPDATE x3: Robot loop #2: He didn’t want to go back. They had to shame him into going back. He didn’t want to go back. He didn’t want to go back.

RUBIO: Chris — Chris, your state got hit by a massive snowstorm two weeks ago. You didn’t even want to go back. They had to shame you into going back. And then you stayed there for 36 hours and then he left and came back to campaign. Those are the facts.

. . . .

RUBIO: Chris, you didn’t want to go back. You didn’t want to go back.

(APPLAUSE)

CHRISTIE: And the fact is, I went back, it got done and here’s…

RUBIO: You didn’t want to go back, Chris.

CHRISTIE: Oh, so — wait a second. Is that one of the skills you get as a United States senator ESP also? Because I don’t think it is.

RUBIO: Chris, everybody — you said you weren’t going to go back. He told everyone he wasn’t going to go back. They had to shame him into going back. And when he decided to go back, he criticized the young lady, saying, what am I supposed to do, go back with a mop and clean up the flooding?

Yes, but did he want to go back?

On a Saturday night? What are we, Democrats?

It will be interesting to see where the fire is aimed. At the person everyone says won in Iowa: Marco Rubio, who “won” by coming in third? (Coming in third isn’t everything. It’s the only thing!) Or Ted Cruz, who actually won? Or Donald Trump, who is heavily favored to win New Hampshire?

By the way, Mary Katherine Ham will be one of the moderators! Go MKH!

Coming up in moments. I plan to be in the comments.

You can live stream the debate here.

[guest post by Dana]

Iconic feminist and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is losing the support of young feminists everywhere. These young women just don’t seem to be sold on the Hillary Bill of goods. Instead, in a most amusing twist of irony, out of the two candidates on the left, young female voters see the angry old white guy as their feminist champion.

Poor Hillary. Instead of being seen as a fighter and champion for women’s rights and justice, she is now viewed as little more than an “overcautious mother”. Is there any greater kiss of death?

“I am excited for a future in which we will have a female president, but I don’t think Hillary is that person for this generation,” said Rachael Jennings, 28, a high school teacher in Dublin, N.H. The same sentiment was echoed over and over in interviews with younger female voters here and in Iowa.

These progressive voters instead see as their champion a man – a 74-year-old democratic socialist, at that. Sanders is all the rage for now.

“Young women cannot remember a time that Hillary was not a household name, and it confuses them what she stands for,” said Nichola Gutgold, a professor of communication arts and sciences at Penn State, who wrote a book, “Almost Madam President,” about Clinton’s 2008 quest for the nomination. “Rejecting her is a way of rejecting the establishment.”

Claiming that Hillary Clinton represents the establishment is something that Clinton rejects. Because she is a woman. Huh? Because she is a woman, she obviously cannot be the establishment…but apparently she can be sexist:

SANDERS: So, Rachel, yes, Secretary Clinton does represent the establishment. I represent, I hope, ordinary Americans, and by the way — who are not all that enamored with the establishment. But I am very proud to have people like Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva in the House, the co-chairmen of the House Progressive Caucus.

MADDOW: Secretary.

CLINTON: Well, look, I’ve got to just jump in here because, honestly, Sen. Sanders is the only person who I think would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the establishment. And I’ve got to tell you that it is …

It is really quite amusing to me.

You know what’s amusing to me? It’s that you can always count on feminists to shamelessly play gender politics, especially with something as important as selecting the next president of the United States:

“Albright on women who might not vote for Clinton: “there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other”

So much for the independent thinking woman who believes she has a responsibility to actually sort through the policies and positions of anyone hoping to become the next leader of our nation. Oh don’t worry your pretty little head about something as icky as *thinking*.

In spite of the given explanations for young feminists rejecting Clinton, I am going to suggest that the real reason is something far less complex, and instead one that simply speaks to the complete and utter fear of young vibrant women who happened to catch a fleeting glimpse of their collective post-menopausal futures:

Open Thread: GOP Debate

–Dana

Idea by Patterico, execution by @nycconservative on Twitter.

Above: a very thirsty Marco Rubio

[guest post by Dana]

At a town hall this week, Hillary Clinton, who lives and breathes the rarefied air of the One Percent, thanks in great part to having profited handsomely from Wall Street, laughably claimed that the “Wall Street guys are trying so hard to stop me”. This in conjunction with her continuous railings against corporate greed, revealed yet more of the candidate’s brazen and undeniable hypocrisy. When confronted at the town hall by Anderson Cooper about being paid $675,000 by Goldman Sach for one year of speech appearances, voters yet again saw a candidate who simply is unable to credibly deny or disentangle herself from her very close and profitable relationship with Wall Street, no matter how much she embarrassingly tries:

“Was that a mistake?” Cooper asked. “I mean, was that a bad error in judgment?”

“Look,” she told Cooper, “I made speeches to lots of groups. I told them what I thought. I answered questions.”

“But did you have to be paid $675,000?” Cooper asked.

To which Clinton said: “Well, I don’t know. That’s what they offered, so . . .”

No wonder the doddering feminist is losing the support of young women everywhere: Wait. What?? I’m confused. Why are you attacking me?? Wall Street?? Who lives there?? Where is my applesauce??!!

Considering that Clinton maintained a price list for those wanting to book her for a speaking engagement, it seems highly unlikely that when it came to Wall Street, she would simply take “what they offered”. After all, this is Wall Street we’re talking about and she is Hillary Clinton, exclusive speaker. Anyway, the speech fees for Clinton were set by her representatives, not by Goldman Sach:

During the period of the Goldman Sach and many other top dollar speeches, she was represented by the Harry Walker Agency, which calls itself “the world’s leading speaker’s bureau.”

When groups pick from their list of speakers, which also include Bill Clinton, the price is discreetly provided. For Hillary Clinton, the price appeared to regularly be shy of $300,000 each.

For kicks, let’s just say it was what Goldman Sach *offered*, wouldn’t a presidential candidate whose platform includes railing against Wall Street greed, corporate recklessness, and disregard for the little people, actually jump at the opportunity to demonstrate that their actions back up their words by turning down such a speaking engagement? That way, the canidate would be seen as an *honest broker rather than a shady grifter with a penchant for big money and big lies.

It’s also interesting to note that as recently as two days ago, Hillary Clinton appeared on the Harry Walker Agency’s website as an “exclusive speaker”:

But today, strangely, she is nowhere to be found:

Anyway, while the MSM tries to soft-pedal Clinton’s Wall Street money-making relationship as unwise, and not unlike her use of a private server, I prefer to call it what is: putrefying hypocrisy.

(*honest: Of course given that it is Hillary Clinton we’re talking about, there really aren’t enough grains of salt with which this should be taken, but I trust you understand my point.)

–Dana