Refuting the Lies About Cruz Told by Rubio and His Supporters
In case you missed it over the weekend, I published two posts yesterday showing that Marco Rubio has said different things about amnesty in English and in Spanish.
In Part One, I showed that Rubio has promised in English that there would be border security before anything happens on legalization, while in Spanish he told Univision that legalization happens first, and border security second.
In Part Two, I showed that Rubio has suggested in English that he would eliminate all of Obama’s illegal amnesty measures on day one, while in Spanish he assured Univision watchers that DACA — the amnesty geared towards dreamers — could not be ended on day one of his administration, and hopefully would last until comprehensive reform could be enacted that would allow them all to stay here permanently.
Some people are asking why I am taking on Rubio. I agree that Donald Trump is the bigger problem, and I am working on something that hopefully would advance the ball on him. But I also agree with Ted Cruz that if we elect a candidate who is pro-amnesty, as Rubio patently is, we are likely to lose in November. More to the point, even if we win, we will get amnesty, including eventual citizenship — and anyone who is honest will admit that Rubio wants this. And that will cause many long-term problems — not the least of which is the creation of a pool of millions of new Democrat voters. If Rubio is elected, we will cement a Democrat majority for decades to come.
We need Ted Cruz. But he is getting hurt by the false perception that his campaign is dishonest. It’s a perception being driven by both Marco Rubio and Donald Trump (and Ben Carson), for their own personal reasons. There are, to be sure, self-inflicted wounds in this process: a Photoshop of Rubio and Obama when genuine pictures would serve the same purpose; or yesterday’s incident where Cruz’s campaign manager pushed a video that supposedly showed Rubio insulting the Bible, which is a preposterous enough notion that it should have raised some red flags. But most of the perception of dishonesty is itself driven by dishonest attacks on “lies” by Cruz that turn out not to be lies. Cruz needs honest folks to have his back on these issues. And Rubio is out there pushing this stuff hard, and in a dishonest manner. So Rubio is going to get some pushback.
If you like Rubio and don’t mind him lying about Ted Cruz, and get upset when people like me defend him, then skip the posts.
Here’s the programming notes for the week. One of the biggest cheerleaders for Marco Rubio on Twitter is a fellow who calls himself “AG Conservative.” He has penned a piece he titles 6 Blatant Ted Cruz Lies about Marco Rubio. You probably won’t be surprised to learn that the “blatant lies” are anything but. His number one “lie” is “Rubio said different things about amnesty in Spanish and in English.” That’s what I exploded yesterday in the two posts linked at the top of this post.
I think it’s worth taking the time to dismantle these “lies.” AG Conservative’s phony list is as good a place to start as any. And so I shall address many of his claims, if not all, this week.
And AG Conservative’s “blatant lie” number two is related to “blatant lie” number one, and is already addressed in the posts and related pages that I have written. It is: “Marco Rubio has gone on Univision and said in Spanish, ‘No, no, I wouldn’t rescind amnesty.'” AG Conservative says:
That’s a direct quote from Cruz that he has repeated several times. As you can see from the Univision transcript, Rubio actually says the exact reverse. This is just a lie. Cruz has adjusted this at times to say Rubio wouldn’t get rid of Obama’s executive amnesty on “day one,” but even that is not accurate as Rubio has always held that he would get rid of DAPA (which hasn’t taken effect and is being held up by the courts) on day one.
AG Conservative says Cruz has repeated “many times” that Rubio would not rescind amnesty, without qualification (such as adding “on day one”). But to prove this point, he provides only one link, to an NBC News piece. As I said on this page:
It should be noted that this is a clipped quote, provided without video evidence, by NBC News — a partisan leftist organization that no sane conservative would trust to provide full context for any quote from a conservative. If video evidence were to emerge that shows Cruz making the claim that Rubio “wouldn’t rescind amnesty” without qualifying it with a phrase like “on day one” — and I am unaware of any such proof — then we could have a discussion about whether and to what extent Cruz’s statement was misleading, given that Rubio, in his Univision appearances, consistently contrasts DAPA, which he “would revoke,” with DACA, which he 1) would not revoke on Day One (although he has since flip-flopped on this); 2) hopes would only be revoked once a legislative amnesty passed; and 3) won’t commit to revoking without legislative amnesty, but merely says that it can’t be the policy forever.
In short, the only credible evidence I have seen of Cruz making this claim is that Rubio wouldn’t revoke Obama’s illegal executive amnesty “on day one.” And I already showed that this claim is true, in my Part Two post linked above and published yesterday. Obama’s illegal amnesty has two parts: DACA (for dreamers) and DAPA (for everyone), and Rubio has clearly said in the past, at least in Spanish, that he would not rescind DACA on day one. So this second “blatant lie” by Cruz turns out to be 100% true.
More to come this week.
UPDATE: AG Conservative on Twitter cites me three other pieces on the Internet that quote Cruz, in that single appearance, supposedly making the accusation in the manner NBC News quoted him. This doesn’t mean that Cruz actually said it without qualification (since nobody provides audio or video or even verbally explains the surrounding context). If he did say it, this doesn’t mean that it’s a “lie” — as opposed to a mistake made once, since he generally qualifies the statement. And it doesn’t discount the other arguments I made in the post showing that Rubio clearly does not want to revoke DACA. More on his obnoxious responses to me here, if you care, which I doubt.
I am a strong Cruz supporter.
However at this point the primary aim should be to stop Trump
Trump the democrat
Joe - From Texas (debac0) — 2/22/2016 @ 7:59 amTrump the truly clueless
I’ve got a major problem with both Cruz and Rubio right now. They’re splitting the “rational Republican” vote by targeting each other instead of Trump. I’m of Hispanic descent (I consider it as much of an achievement as having pubic hair). There is a joke in Spanish that I think applies:
A Man walks into a restaurant advertising “Live Lobsters”. He sees two tanks. One tank is labeled “American Lobster”–the other marked “Mexican Lobster”. The man notices that the “American Lobster” tank is covered by a board…and the board has rocks on it. The “Mexican Lobster” tank is open to the air.
The man asks “What’s the difference? Why the board on one and not the other?”
The waiter says..”It’s really quite simple. The American Lobsters were escaping. One would climb to the top of the tank and hang there. This would allow the others to climb up over him and get out of the tank…then the first Lobster would follow the rest. That’s why we put the board on it”.
The man asks “Fair enough. Why is there no board on the Mexican Lobster tank, then?”
The waiter says “It’s not needed. If one of them gets higher than the rest, they all get together and pull him down.”
Cruz and Rubio need to figure out that they’re Mexican Lobsters.
RaynMan (2f33cb) — 2/22/2016 @ 8:14 amSince JEB dropped out, the GOPe is coalescing around Rubio, if JEB’s big money backers sign on then he immediately becomes the establishment’s champion and designated dragon slayer of upstart insurgents Trump and Cruz. Rubio must divide and conquer.
It’s probably to late to bulldoze the Nevada Republican Caucus, but with the GOPe’s machine working overtime Rubio could well make a solid showing there. Which would attract JEB’s big money backers and set the stage for a big surge in the SEC Primaries.
Cruz should direct his attention to Rubio and knock out the establishment candidate now before his strength multiplies, or he’ll be the one watching Rubio give victory speeches.
Cruz and Trump are defacto allies against Rubio. The time for them to face each other is not yet.
ropelight (97ef16) — 2/22/2016 @ 8:23 amSi se puede!!!
Colonel Haiku (5db653) — 2/22/2016 @ 8:31 amKinda goes to show the downside of using stupid, broad-brush propaganda terms like “amnesty” to describe complex policy frameworks, doesn’t it? Lends itself to stupid, broad-brush propaganda criticisms rooted in the vagueness of the initial stupid, broad-brush propaganda terms.
Leviticus (efada1) — 2/22/2016 @ 8:32 amJoe, while I agree Trump needs to be stopped, Rubio is by far the more dangerous candidate. Trump will have a hard time holding a consensus on any issue if he, in office, backpedals on promises made during the campaign. Most Republicans dislike him, so his negatives will be a constant albatross on any Trump administration; however, Rubio has no such albatross and with the full support of the RINOs in Congress you can expect most of his amnesty plan to pass.
Sean (221079) — 2/22/2016 @ 8:34 amLike, which one is Teh Amnesty? DACA or DAPA? Or both, maybe? Or both plus some other stuff? And like what if Rubio was all about rescinding DACA on Day 2? Or maybe within Week One?
Is this really in the realm of “100% True/False” or are we just watching a couple of politicians try to kick each other in the nuts?
Leviticus (efada1) — 2/22/2016 @ 8:35 amI’d like to see Cruz adjust his campaign strategy to peel away the Joe Sixpacks away from Trump by contrasting his policies with Trump’s empty promises. The Dirty Jobs and Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives folks are the people who make America great not the Celebrity Apprentices.
crazy (cde091) — 2/22/2016 @ 8:37 amIs there any audio or video of this supposed statement by Cruz? I can’t seem to find any? When I search, I see an NBC report, along with the typical media circle jerk where they link to each other’s reporting, but I cannot find the actual source of the quote. The audio I can find, interesting enough, has Cruz adding the “Day One” caveat the Rubots like to ignore.
BK in BR (c5605e) — 2/22/2016 @ 8:46 amno but there’s video of Roobs hating on the bible like a big pooper
Ted Cruz on the other hand he loves the bible cause of it has all the answers
advantage: Mr. The Donald
happyfeet (831175) — 2/22/2016 @ 8:55 amI can’t wait for teh Hitler video! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12168314/Hitler-had-a-micropenis-as-well-as-just-one-testicle-historians-claim.html
Colonel Haiku (5db653) — 2/22/2016 @ 9:30 amYour all missing the big picture. After losing a caucus, which was not decided on a coin flip, Bernie Sanders is mathematically eliminated from post season playoff.
Then there’s this. Cruz spokesman apologizes for inaccurate video attacking Rubio.
Biblicious shenanigans by the Cruz camp.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/22/2016 @ 9:33 amApparently, Trump has started openly threatening those that don’t support him?
Colonel Haiku (5db653) — 2/22/2016 @ 9:55 amGreat! Let’s make him President. As a private citizen he can only bring frivolous lawsuits.
But give him the IRS…
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 10:23 amSo, the last two posts restated.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/22/2016 @ 10:30 am#15: no. a lead in to tearing AG Conservative a new one on all 6 points. #1 was done in this post.
jb (8a9f1d) — 2/22/2016 @ 10:34 amAn incendiary commmment like that deserves some verification. Just sayin’
ropelight (97ef16) — 2/22/2016 @ 10:37 amhttp://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/what-sort-of-man-is-donald-trump
Yeah, let’s make this man President. Then do single payer health care, like he wants.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 10:37 amTrump is providing you the verification. If you would deign to notice, good sir.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 10:40 amHere’s what I saw… https://t.co/aev0eQXFgD
Colonel Haiku (250e3e) — 2/22/2016 @ 10:46 amThat was via Stephen Hayes…
Colonel Haiku (250e3e) — 2/22/2016 @ 10:47 amSteve57,
Donald J. Trump is a nice, humble man. Since 10:42 this morning, he has never, ever engaged in histrionics, or name calling, or threatening people who disagree with him.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/22/2016 @ 10:49 amCheck that…since 11:17 this morning, he has never, ever…
“@stephenfhayes: Trump now making open threats to those who oppose him.
Colonel Haiku (250e3e) — 2/22/2016 @ 10:49 amtwitter.com/politico/statu…”
We steves are a pretty awesome bunch, aren’t we? The rest of you should be buying us drinks.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 10:55 amAlso, women should be sleeping with us for no other reason than we are named…
Steve!
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 10:56 amTrump saw what Obama did with the IRS. He must be salivating at the thought of doing it himself. If so, the Ricketts family will be high on his list.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/22/2016 @ 10:59 amno. a lead in to tearing AG Conservative a new one on all 6 points. #1 was done in this post.
So much to look forward to then.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/22/2016 @ 11:02 amDRJ, after I commented @23 & 24 I almost regretted it. It was a clumsy attempt on my part to say what I mean when I say, I’m not getting the Trump phenom.
How would I play on my name, if it was worth Trump?
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 11:07 amKevin M,
ISIS is setting people on fire, China is setting a predicate for dominating the international shipping lines on their side of the hemisphere, the Left is looking to subvert the Constitution via our federal courts, yet we’re all putting a bull’s eye on the back of…Marco Rubio.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/22/2016 @ 11:11 amHis number one “lie” is “Rubio said different things about amnesty in Spanish and in English.”
He has said different things, but not necessarily contradictory things. There are two different forms of “ending” DACA. One is ending the issuance of further documents and the other is cancelling existing documents. It is not clear that Ted Cruz would do the latter, either.
Now of course you could ask Marco Rubio how, if the issuance of some documents was unauthorized by law, how he could revoke them?
I suppose Marco Rubio would say the executive amnesty was in fact NOT illegal, just bad policy..
In fact, has he ever called it illegal? Ted Cruz has, but has Marco Rubio?? I don’t think so.
Re Lie Number 2: Marco Rubio does not call either DACA or DAPA amnesty. So he never said he would not rescind it.
What he said is that he will not revoke any permission to stay or to work thing granted by Barack Obama. I mean it’s petty clear what he said. Also he said he would not do anything new until a law is passed. The universe of people eligible for DACA, or even DAPA, is fixed. If he is elected, people will have at least until noon of January 20, 2017 to get their papers.
Sammy Finkelman (882d94) — 2/22/2016 @ 11:17 amAmnesty “will cause…the creation of a pool of millions of new Democrat voters,” but you won’t discuss how indiscriminate mass legal immigration affects the political culture.
You are incoherent.
scrutineer (9e45b2) — 2/22/2016 @ 11:56 amIf Cruz were to stand for Nov. election I will show up to vote.
If its Rubio I definitely will not.
Otherwise, we’ll see.
DNF (755a85) — 2/22/2016 @ 11:58 amwhat Obama did
You can’t prove it.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/22/2016 @ 12:18 pmDNF, I would vote for Judas before I let that woman win.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 12:18 pmI don’t have to like it, though.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 12:18 pmNot with this justice department.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 12:20 pmDNF, you’re playing the moral equivalency game. That’s the domain of the Left.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/22/2016 @ 12:27 pmWhat ever flaws Rubio has, he’s still light years more conservative than Clinton.
The thing about voting for Judas, that was a figure of speech. I didn’t mean for it to be taken literally.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 12:35 pmAnd Cruz’s lies about Rubio on immigration? … This is a big back and forth and both sides misrepresent the other side.
Fact is only two things the two Cubans disagree on is a) existence of a legalization process for illegals in immigration reform and b) some criminal justice reform (not much either)
Pretty much they agree on policy from what I see. Don’t let the blah blah confuse anyone, these guys are near identical on policy when it comes down to it. Yes, one says do X and the other a variant on X but same direction.
Rodney King's Spirit (3adc86) — 2/22/2016 @ 12:39 pmWow, a video has just been unearthed of Senator Joe Biden in 1992 saying Supreme Court confirmations during the election season is totally not kosher.
Thanks, Joe! You ‘da man!
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/22/2016 @ 12:40 pmRod, is it too much to ask that you not lose focus?
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 12:42 pmI’ll vote for your guy, faults and all, if you’ll vote for my guy, faults and all, just so the h3ll bitch can’t pardon herself.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 12:45 pmWhoa. How did that last one make it past the censorship software?
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 12:48 pm‘Cruz Supporter’,
DNF didn’t say Rubio is no more conservative than Clinton.
DNF said, essentially, that he has standards. So do I. There’s a baseline that a presidential candidate must reach before I’ll vote for him now.
Don’t like it? Nominate a worthy candidate. Time for the GOP establishment to give something back to the people it has stabbed in the back, including over the issue Rubio was so dishonest about. If they want to unify the party they would have already backed Cruz in a big way. Trump wouldn’t be a problem if they did.
But most of us realize the GOP would rather lose with Rubio than win with Cruz. This party loyalty stuff only goes one way.
Dustin (2a8be7) — 2/22/2016 @ 12:48 pmDid Ted Cruz just fire his communications director, Rick Tyler?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/22/2016 @ 12:49 pmWhy would he do that?
I found a Rubiobot.
There she is. All in for Rubio. “Rubio party of two! Table’s ready.”
papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/22/2016 @ 12:49 pmDustin,
DNF just said he wouldn’t vote for Rubio over Clinton. And I’m saying that Rubio is more conservative than Clinton. It’s just a matter of opinion, of course.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/22/2016 @ 12:53 pmAn essential skill for any good lawyer is the ability to argue, on command, either side of a disputed proposition, without respect to the lawyer’s own views as to which side is more persuasive.
(It’s the application of this skill which makes so many people so distrustful of anything a lawyer ever says: “Is he doing that again, dammit?!?”)
I’ve tried very hard to imagine that I’ve been appointed as counsel to the Rubio campaign, and that it’s my job to defend Rubio’s honesty and accuracy on this particular, narrow question: Did Rubio say in Spanish on Univision something different from, and necessarily inconsistent with, what he now says in English about whether he’d revoke this executive order on the first day of a Rubio presidency?
I can’t make a credible argument for consistency. This simply isn’t one. He’s been caught in a contradiction.
That it’s on the topic of immigration reform, on which Rubio already carries (and acknowledges that he carries) so much baggage from the Gang of Eight deal, makes this a particularly noteworthy contradiction. This isn’t a case of, “No, that doesn’t make your butt look big.” This isn’t a bit of vanity, like when Trump insists that the orange hair-helmet he wears isn’t really a comb-over. This is a deliberate misstatement on a subject that his material, and indeed central, to Rubio’s policy plans as a potential POTUS, and therefore it’s also material when we’re evaluating his overall credibility and trustworthiness.
The first time, or the first couple or three times, that he insisted in English that he’d never said that in Spanish, and that Cruz was lying about him, could be partially excused if he’d say now, “I’m sorry, I was mistaken in my recollection of what I said on Univision, and now that I look at it again I see that I badly misspoke that day.”
But no, Rubio’s doubled down. Cruz’ claim is factually correct; and this is not a matter of opinion, or degree, but rather of objectively verifiable fact. So the word “lie,” connoting a knowing and intentional untruth rather than an accidental one, is apt.
This episode does indeed directly implicate my most severe reservation about Marco Rubio as a potential GOP nominee. The choice between Rubio and Cruz is, for me, an easy one that I made long, long ago, based on the Gang of Eight story, which is, after all, by far the most consequential thing, either positive or negative, that Rubio has done during his relatively short time in the U.S. Senate. This additional data point supports, but only buttresses, that choice.
Our host references the Cruz campaigns’ “self-inflicted wounds,” and I agree with Patrick’s examples, and could have added a few of my own. How many of them originated in poor judgments of the candidate himself — as opposed to poor judgments made by campaign staffers or consultants — is something I wonder about. The Cruz campaign is widely recognized for its relative competency and professionalism and organization, but like all such campaigns (even the perpetual campaigns like Hillary’s, which has been in existence since sometime before even Bubba’s first election was in the bag), the Cruz campaign includes strong and weak elements, and whoever did that photoshop job, or approved that mailer in Iowa, badly disserved the campaign. I doubt it was Cruz himself, but as he’d surely be the first to insist, ultimately it’s his responsibility.
Rubio’s doubling down on this lie, though, was a decision that might have been urged upon him by staffers, but that he made and implemented himself, through his own lips, repeatedly now.
Accordingly, the best private counsel I could give him on this topic, were I engaged as his counselor, would be: “This lie will dog you until Election Day, and you’ve made it worse, but there’s no better way out of this problem than, belatedly, to admit error, to ask for forgiveness, and try to move on to something else.” Rubio clearly made that painful calculation many months ago when it comes to his original participation in the Gang of Eight deal; he needs now to choke down another serving of crow.
If my private counsel to that effect were rejected, I think I’d resign the engagement rather than continue on in public, as an advocate, with trying to defend Rubio’s position. I think it’s literally indefensible, but the damage which will be done by continuing to try is greater than the damage that would be done if he ate the crow now.
***
All of that said:
I can instantly point you to dozens and dozens of deliberate lies told by Trump just in the month of February — and maybe just in the last 72 hours — which are on substantive policy points that are vastly more consequential than whether this particular executive order is vacated on the first day of a Republican presidency.
To those of you who say, “I’d vote for Trump before Rubio,” I can only ask: What are you smoking?
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 12:53 pmWhat’s your bottom line, Papertiger?
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 12:54 pmI’m relatively sure that there is some flunky on the Trump advance team whose sole job is to ensure that no venue includes anything which might disturb that orange hair-helmet.
It’s childish of me, but I would very much enjoy seeing Trump caught in a sudden windstorm without his baseball cap.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 12:59 pmBeldar @47, if it would help to make you feel better about your lawyering and the mistrust, it’s widely acknowledged that prostitution is only the second oldest profession.
Somebody had to know where the girls are.
Intel.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:01 pmI got one. Trump for all intents and purposes won the nomination in SC. Today there isn’t one mention of Trump on the news scroll of my Bing homepage.
The only mention is a detailed biography of “The woman who shakes her fist at Trump pledges to spend millions”
papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:05 pmCruz fans aren’t going to want to hear this, but his laser focus on amnesty — largely pushed by bloggers like Patterico, Ace, Gateway & Allah — has absolutely murdered his campaign. The amnesty message has totally drowned out Ted’s policy proposals for the future, leaving him as the candidate of religion (he wins those votes) and amnesty (he loses those votes to Trump).
It was an absolutely suicidal strategy from Day 1 for a Party where more than 50% support a pathway to citizenship.
The result is that Cruz now sits at a whopping 2% — TWO PERCENT — in the prediction markets. And that’s for the GOP nomination only.
Amerigo Chattin (ccd22a) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:08 pmHe is saying he won’t support Rubio over a less conservative politician because he has ethical standards for who he will support. Pointing out that Clinton is less conservative isn’t very insightful. If Clinton were the GOP nominee versus Sanders, you would vote for Clinton, under your own standard. DNF would not. So you’re more of a Clinton supporter than he is. I think it’s much healthier for a political party’s continued effectiveness if we establish lines in the sand. Also, I firmly believe it’s time for the GOP establishment to lose a primary, particularly in the context of amnesty and the impact that would have on our country (far greater than even a Supreme Court nomination).
—-
Beldar, awesome comment. Biting the bullet is often the best advice. It would show respect to the voters. But the winning strategy this year is to try to damage the other candidate, rather than to aspire to be a good ethical leader.
Dustin (2a8be7) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:11 pmEyes on the prize, folks… eyes on the prize. If this election is lost to the Democrats, that’s about all she wrote.
Colonel Haiku (250e3e) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:17 pmhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0h3Mu8BbjM
Ted Cruz in 2011. The Ted Cruz I voted for as Senator.
Lovely of Amerigo Chattin to suggest I din’t know what I was doing.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:18 pmTwo very simple points here:
Irrespective of honesty, the issue Cruz (and now Patterico) have harped on is DACA — deferred action on illegals who were brought to the U.S. as kids and are now either college students, soldiers or vets. THIS IS NOT DAPA (Obama’s huge illegal amnesty after the 2014 Midterms). There are less than a million illegals who have signed up for DACA. DACA is not constitutional, but it’s not a point for any rational person to be staking an argument. These are not gang members. And the policy was implemented in 2012 — BEFORE the Romney/Obama Election. In other words, right wing candidates have had two election cycles to run on this policy, but have chosen not to. The idea of deporting this group is suicidal (kind of like Cruz’s campaign). It’s pretty reasonable to believe that the GOP would never win a national election again if it supported deportation of the so-called Dreamers.
Second, the status quo — i.e., doing nothing after the 2012 election (as Cruz pushed for) — has been terrible for the GOP and for the country. Indeed, doing nothing (in this context) equal amnesty. Instead of getting at least some relief from a Gang of 8 bill (which a future GOP President could strengthen), we got nothing — meaning the illegals here keep having anchor babies — even as Obama unilaterally implemented a giant executive amnesty (DAPA). So Cruz’s opposition to the Gang of 8 bill has been wonderful for Cruz on the optics of his purity, but in reality has been very bad for the country.
Amerigo Chattin (ccd22a) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:18 pm#40 And what would that be? Focus on what? Bashing Rubio to exalt Cruz because that happens to be the fashion of the day for some? Cruz is no savior. Just a slightly better version of the typical patrician politician. And one who got out flanked by Trump in pursuing his target voters.
Sadly for many of us, had Trump blown away then Cruz would likely have a commanding lead with his strategy and Rubio fighting off Bush/Kasich/Christie, etc. But Trump came, saw and kicked Ted’s a** in pursuit of “core” Ted’ sympathizers. Cruz would easily have gotten 80% of Trump’s support in my view.
So here we are, and sitting around ripping Rubio about typical politico double talk does nothing to help Cruz much like Christie doing same to Rubio did nothing for him. Rubio for better or worse is pretty conservative and stands up for many of the same things Conservatives do, including things Cruz stands for.
So I just don’t get this “hair on fire against Rubio” thing given the record to date — even his mis-guided Gang of 8 bill where he got taken for a ride. Anyway.
Rodney King's Spirit (3adc86) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:19 pmWord. Word, coronello.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:19 pmUpdated, 4:11 p.m. | LAS VEGAS – Senator Ted Cruz fired his communications director Monday after the campaign circulated a doctored video that appeared to show Senator Marco Rubio disparaging the Bible, further inflaming the open warfare between the campaigns, with Mr. Rubio saying the episode reflected a pattern of dishonesty by Mr. Cruz.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/22/ted-cruz-fires-top-aide-for-spreading-misinformation-on-marco-rubio/
Dana (f05960) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:24 pmNot sure I follow.
Amerigo Chattin (ccd22a) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:24 pmDRJ, that tweet from Trump — “I hear the Rickets family, who own the Chicago Cubs, are secretly spending $’s against me. They better be careful, they have a lot to hide!” — is absolutely chilling. And completely unsurprising.
I know Mike Godwin; Mike Godwin is a friend of mine (or was, more accurately; we were in an Honors Biology 302 study group together in Plan II at UT-Austin in 1975, and both earned hard-to-get A grades, which prompted some of our pre-med classmates to grumble, since the class was graded on a strict curve and was part of their core curriculum). I therefore have an exemption from blame upon violating Godwin’s Law, and I therefore say: That sounds exactly like what Mussolini might have said. (Did you think I’d say Hitler? Naw, Mussolini the clown fascist is the better fit than Hitler the mouth-foaming fascist, and it was actually Mussolini who perfected modern crony capitalism.)
papertiger, as so often, I don’t get your point. Are you saying that the Rickets family is all in for Rubio? They seem to be a pretty generous givers to a wide range of GOP candidates in the past:
If they’re now involved through a super-PAC in educating voters about Trump, I’m glad for that. It’s the First Amendment in action. Tell me, papertiger, do you agree with Jeb Bush that we need to “eliminate” Citizens United? Or are you with Obama and now, it seems, Trump, in wanting to use government (e.g., the IRS) to persecute your candidate’s political opponents?
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:25 pmUPDATE: since my last comment (a few minutes ago), Cruz is now down to 1% in the GOP Nomination prediction markets.
Amerigo Chattin (ccd22a) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:31 pm@ Amerigo Chattin (#56): I have a yes or no question for you. Say whatever you want after, but to answer the question, you have to begin with “yes” or “no.”
Do you concede that Rubio has been caught in a lie regarding his position on DACA?
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:32 pmAmerigo (I like that name, BTW) I voted for a Ted Cruz who was against illegal immigration back in 2012.
How can I make it more clear?
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:33 pm“Irrespective of honesty.” You might want to polish your pitch so you don’t start off with that part, Amerigo.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:34 pmIf Trump supporters are dogmatic and “angry voters” getting behind a carnival barker … and a large part of Cruz’s expected core support was those same voters …. What does that say of the Cruz Campaign? Just curious.
Folks were quick (and correct) to mock many of Obola’s brain dead leftist supporters. So if Trump is building a similar support group on the other side of the fence ….. and Cruz wishes he was on that side of the fence instead of Trump.
Love to hear thoughts.
Rodney King's Spirit (3adc86) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:34 pmpapertiger, you clearly should change your homepage to the Trump website.
But I still don’t understand your point, if you have one. And you didn’t answer my question about Citizens United and the First Amendment.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:35 pm#65 Considering every candidate lies not sure Amerigo needs to polish it at all. We voters have to work very hard to get past the Game Show Quality of all elections and I suspect that is what Amerigo is talking to as well as I understand that is a very very subjective process.
Rodney King's Spirit (3adc86) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:37 pmI’m not defending the honesty of Rubio’s position …. I’m pointing out the suicidal approach purists are taking on this issue.
Deporting the DACA “Dreamers” is relatively on par with the popularity of partial birth abortions; and defeating the Gang of 8 bill only made the Democrats position stronger — a tactical win for Cruz and Co., and a full scare strategy defeat for reducing illegal immigration.
The final piece is Cruz’s suicidal laser focus on the amnesty issue — an issue where he loses voters to Trump.
Amerigo Chattin (ccd22a) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:38 pmMy first choice nominee is Cruz. My second choice is Rubio.
And I will vote for any Republican over Hillary.
I know there are a lot of people with “standards!” who want to scold people like me. But I’ll be happy to meet you for lunch in the cafeteria at the BARRY GOLDWATER PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY to discuss it. (LOL)
Life usually does not result in realizing perfect or ideal choices, rather, it’s about choosing from what’s on the menu. We’ve all lived in less than ideal apartments or homes, and driven less than ideal junky cars, and worked less than ideal jobs that didn’t pay well enough where we had to endure a jerky boss or even do tasks that we hated. That’s because we go with the best available choice at that time. If Marco Rubio is squaring off against Hillary Clinton in the general election, he is the best available choice.
It would be wonderful if Calvin Coolidge, or Barry Goldwater, or Ronald Reagan, or Jack Kemp was on the ballot in 2016. But none of them is. So we go with whomever the more conservative candidate is in the general election.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:39 pmYes, absolutely.
Now. Do you want to keep talking about that lie, and absolutely suicidal issues for the GOP (like deporting the Dreamers) …. or do you wanna go try and win an election and actually get some of these positive policies implemented?
Amerigo Chattin (ccd22a) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:40 pmA reasonable sentiment and one I’ve held many times as I went ahead and voted for a nominee I really didn’t like. Most here will surely agree. Democrats are the great evil boogeyman, and if in some freak accident the GOP nominates someone who is basically a democrat, say Kasich, then most of you will grumble to the polls and vote for the political party you are loyal to.
And that force of loyalty has corroded the party. Look at how they were given a house of congress in 2010 and 2014, and what they did with that power.
We need to consider what the real problem is that we’re trying to solve. Is it merely that the wrong team won an election? I don’t think anyone here believes that. I think the problem is more about the scope and size of government, its spending, and many mistaken policies. So the solution is substance and reform, not team changing. If both teams are going to increase the size of government, then the political solution is to somehow disrupt one of the teams. In 2008 we were told if Obama wins that all she wrote. Same in 2012. The consequences have been high, but the world hasn’t ended. The world won’t end if the democrats win in 2016. In fact, I really wonder if amnesty is more likely with Hillary than Rubio, given who holds congress (and that one is a real world ender for the right).
Ideally, I get a nominee I like and vote GOP happily, but I’ll vote for the man, not the (R).
If only the GOP understood this before it ticked off so many if its passionate voters, year after year. Trump has harnessed some of this. He and his fans are on the other side of a burnt bridge, and a lot of y’all are dismayed that you can’t reach them (even with some excellent points).
Food for thought guys!
Dustin (2a8be7) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:41 pmOh, noes! Not the nominations futures market? Oh, please, tell me it’s not that!
Someone call Ted. I’m sure he’ll throw in the towel, just like he did in 2012 at this same point in the election cycle when everyone unanimously agreed that Ted Cruz could never, ever, beat for the Texas GOP Senate nomination a (partially) self-funding multimillionaire, an incumbent in the second-most-powerful (maybe tied for first-most-powerful) political office in Texas, who’d been on, and won, in every state-wide Texas general election ballot going back to 1998.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:41 pmI got that part. No problem there.
I’m just not sure why you think I said, “[you] don’t know what [you] were doing.” I supported Ted Cruz for the Senate in 2012, and would certainly again in 2018.
Amerigo Chattin (ccd22a) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:41 pmYou can belittle these markets all you want — notwithstanding that people actually put their money where their mouth is.
But the reality isn’t pretty: no candidate at 1% in a prediction market has ever won — at any level for any office.
Amerigo Chattin (ccd22a) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:44 pmYou don’t get to choose, Beldar
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2016/02/fullbore-friday_12.html#disqus_thread
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:44 pmFax number for Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR): (479) 927-1092
Fax number for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL): (202) 224-3149
Neither has made an endorsement. Both of their states vote on March one. I’ve faxed both with my best plea for why they ought to endorse Sen. Cruz.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:49 pmThe seeming discrepancy in tonnage could be explained if we’re talking dry or what.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:50 pmLet me just say that this comment encapsulates the suicidal thinking of the GOP, the right wing and conservative America about as well as any comment could.
First, we have the implication that the ONLY issue that matters is amnesty — which is nuts to begin with, but I digress.
Second, we have this belief the the status quo (which is de facto amnesty) is somehow preferable to a reform that sought to minimize (however, imperfectly) new illegal immigration. This belief that some new President is going to take office one day and deport 20 million Mexicans is just totally bonkers. Yet, lots of people on the right actually believe this is a possibility, so they refuse to vote for a guy like Rubio — because he won’t promise to do something that no one is ever going to do.
Third, the number of voters in this country who think that “stopping amnesty” is a policy priority is fairly small: under 20%.
Fourth, this country is facing very serious problems for the future — most having nothing whatever to do with immigration. Electing a Democrat will make those problems much, much worse.
Amerigo Chattin (ccd22a) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:51 pmI’m bi-curious to know where you got the idea that the only issue that matters is amnesty.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 1:56 pmAmerigo, I do belittle those markets, and respect their predictions about as much as I do those of fantasy sports betters. By comparison, in fact, the fantasy sports betters have a whole lot more objective data on which to base their guesses.
One state by itself — my home state of Texas — is going to award more delegates on March 1 than have been awarded in all the contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Let’s talk electability then, shall we?
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 2:00 pmI do not think amnesty is the only issue, however I do think if the GOP creates twenty million more democrat voters it will be the only issue they will need to worry about for a while though.
With all due respect so far it sounds like amnesty is your only issue. My main go-to issue is actually balancing the budget.
BTW I followed your first statistic where you said less than half the party cares about this and found you didn’t cover the claim accurately. Go compare your link to what you claimed it said.
Sounds scary. How do you intend to solve them when the democrats have a decades long assured majority? You do grasp that this is the reason for the issue in the first place, right?
Dustin (2a8be7) — 2/22/2016 @ 2:02 pm@ steve57: Thanks for that link! I adore stories of heroism like that.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 2:02 pmSorry about moving the thread to a minor point, but does anyone really care about the Photoshopped ad? We are in a pop culture that communicates via Photoshopped memes and images. It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that the author of the ad considered the fact that it was Photoshopped to be part of the message. Also, use of a Photoshopped image prevents the “taken out of context” defense. “How dare you use the opening of such-and-such Veterans Center for political gain.” or “You were there too.”
Patrick (503c25) — 2/22/2016 @ 2:03 pmBeldar @83, the thing is, you can either give in or you can fight. This is relevant because…
http://www.ussnautilus.org/undersea/cromwell.html
…I have no idea if Cromwell was a Roosevelt Democrat.
The thing is, it’s relevant for the first time in 70 years.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 2:12 pm#72 Dustin wrote, “The world won’t end if the democrats win in 2016.”
———
Wut?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/22/2016 @ 2:18 pmHeh! If Trump is the nominee, he’ll get schlonged by Hillary so hard that he’ll sue his dominatrix for failure to provide honest services.
nk (dbc370) — 2/22/2016 @ 2:21 pm@ Patrick: I agree that the photoshopped ad is incredibly small potatoes that in any other election cycle and with any other candidate would have been missed or ignored. In fact, Barack Obama and Marco Rubio have shaken hands in the past! Horrors! Well, no actually, it would be churlish for a United States senator to refuse to shake hands with any holder of the Office of the Presidency. (Sort of like it’s churlish for any POTUS to refuse to attend the funeral of a sitting SCOTUS justice, allegedly so he could stay home and study his briefing books on whom to appoint as a successor.)
And more to the point, regarding the truth or falsity of the point that the photograph was intended to portray: Yes, Obama did support the Gang of Eight bill.
It’s a fair cop, guv. Rubio early on admitted that he needed to admit that and apologize, and he has.
The Iowa direct mail “violation” ad is likewise absolutely routine stuff for election season.
The only reason that these things have gotten attention and traction is because they’re the very best examples that Cruz opponents can find in which to point out that Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion. To extend and mix the metaphor: This is the best (or worse) they can come up with to suggest that Cruz’ own skirts are unclean.
I’m glad Cruz has hung a lantern on this by firing his PR director. And I hope that will end the missteps, which are trivial when viewed in perspective, but acutely serious at the moment because of the traction the earlier incidents have gotten.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 2:24 pmI’m still at a loss over those two combatants what surrendered to the Iranians.
I mean, string your expletives along here.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 2:24 pmBeldar, it looks as if Ted Cruz just fired his communications director for lying not just about a fake photo, but about making up quotes which he attributed to Rubio. In a situation where Rubio was actually talking to Ted Cruz’ father!
Yikes! That’s notttt good.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/22/2016 @ 2:29 pmIt’s hard enough to defend the Navy against the charge Fletcher abandoned them at Guadalcanal. I personally think Fletcher made the right call, the only call he could have made in 1942. Given how much gas he had burned through and how many Wildcats he had lost.
But it’s hard to defend a service when they just roll over like that.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 2:30 pmBeldar @47
I think there is an answer to this..
He has said different things, but not necessarily contradictory things.
There are two different forms of “ending” DACA. One is ending the issuance of further documents and the other is cancelling existing documents. It is not clear that Ted Cruz would do the latter, either. Ted Cruz is not saying that he is. He only trying to imply that he is.
In his Univision interview, Marco Rubio uses two different words: “Cancelarlo” and “terminar”, or at Univision’s English translation has it: “cancel” and “end” Cancel means to invalidate any papers, and end means to stop the program.
Rubio was saying before he would not cancel/revoke anything suddenly, but at some point he’s going to end the program. Now he’s saying, I think, that he’ll do that right away. He is not saying, and never has said, that he will cancel out anything that has been done under it.
So: Marco Rubio will get rid of DACA, but not invalidate the papers issued under it. Issuance of new papers will at least be set to phase out on his first or second day in office. All applications already in processing will probably be allowed to proceed.
On the other hand, DAPA, which has not yet gone into effect because it has been stayed, will be totally cancelled (unless this will be unstayed before next January 20) Should implementation of DAPA actually begin prior to January 20, 2017 the same policy as will apply to DACA will apply to that too.
Marco Rubio is against invalidating any documents issued by the government. Furthermore, Marco Rubio hopes, or says, all the people who benefited from DACA will benefit from some new piece of legislation. Here he may be misleading people, because the prospect for new legislation is not good. Anyway, he indicates that at some point these papers will become worthless but also irrelevant.
By the way, I think all papers issued under DACA already have an expiration date. This was probably intended as a motivation for Hispanics to vote Democrat. The Democrats are going to be needed every election.
Now of course you could ask Marco Rubio, if the issuance of some documents was unauthorized by law, how he could not revoke them?
Here Marco Rubio may have said one thing too many. I suppose Marco Rubio could say the executive action was in fact NOT illegal, just unwise policy, and he’s certainly implied that in Spanish.
However, he has declared it unconstitutional later, in English.
He might say that what’s unconstitutional about it, is making it permanent. Except that Barack Obama hasn’t done that either. I don’t know. Someone will have to ask him. He may have an answer.
On another issue, Marco Rubio does not call either DACA or DAPA amnesty. So he never said he would not rescind amnesty . Marco Rubio defines amnesty as the granting of permanent freedom from deportation equal to people who have permanent residence status
Also, in 2013, the executive action had not yet happened so Marco Rubio could say that “border control” or something would have to happen before anything happens. That does not apply now, because Barack Obama has created a new situation.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 2/22/2016 @ 2:36 pmWhat branch were they with?
Dustin (2a8be7) — 2/22/2016 @ 2:41 pmElectability in November is a key factor, so let’s look at that aspect.
The first thing to bear in mind is why Romney lost. A huge part of it was that several percent (it only takes a few) R voters didn’t trust him on healthcare due to his record. Healthcare was a major issue in that election.
This year, we’ve got the two top issues, immigration and anti-GOP establishment. On BOTH of those issues Rubio is very vulnerable to the “Romney problem” because of his record. Further, his many examples of dishonesty (of which his dissembling on immigration is but one) are heaven sent for Hillary Clinton, who faces her own dishonesty problem.
The current buzz that Rubio is electable is due to people being unaware of his record, just as it was with Romney on healthcare. The Democrats took great pains to make certain to sow doubt about Romney’s honestly on healthcare (Remember Obama saying often, including during a debate, that Romneycare was the model for Obamacare?) and it worked. In 2012, we nominated Romney in spite of this glaring electability problem, and look what happened.
Rubio has an even larger “Romney problem” than Romney did. Given this year’s top issues, nominating a GOP establishment candidate who also has a huge amnesty problem is a superb strategy, but only if your goal is to snatch defeat from the looming jaws of victory.
Arizona CJ (da673d) — 2/22/2016 @ 2:42 pmSigh. I’ll explain again, with shorter sentences.
The difference between the parties is not apocalyptic. It’s not even big. My vote will have to be earned positively, rather than coerced out of fear of doom.
Dustin (2a8be7) — 2/22/2016 @ 2:44 pmArizona CJ gets it.
Come election day, Rubio would have to win with votes. When the press is done with Rubio (and they won’t really get started until July), Rubio will be well known as a pretty face who never ran anything and is defined mainly by a big bad lie.
Cruz is already under fire from all sides. He’s getting damaged and making more mistakes. Would Rubio do as well under the same fire?
Dustin (2a8be7) — 2/22/2016 @ 2:51 pmEdward Covverley Kennedy was a Scotsman. From Edinburgh. Asking a Scotsman to just “give” you anything is a futile endeavor. A whole ship? You don’t know what you’re asking.
nk (dbc370) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:03 pmIt’s funny how “this year’s top issue” constantly fails to rate in the Top 3 of issues voters care about in entrance/exit polls for the primaries & caucuses thus far.
The problem with the “Romney didn’t turnout the white vote” theory is that that missing vote was concentrated in states like Alabama, Oklahoma, Georgia and South, i.e., states Romney won anyway.
Romney actually set raw vote records for the GOP in swing states like Florida and Virginia. Colorado was lost on the Hispanic vote alone. The one state were losing white votes really cost Romney was Ohio. And a lot of that had to do with the perception of Romney as a rich, out of touch corporate villain, who fired your uncle. All part of the ‘Kill Mitt’ strategy employed by the Obama team.
It is very hard to point to even one swing state that Romney lost on account of Romneycare. Indeed, in the one swing state where Romney really performed poorly with white (Ohio), the popular governor has gone out of his way to expand Obamacare.
Alan Miller (bbfc4b) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:06 pmDustin,
You and I just happen to disagree about the gulf which exists between Hillary and Marco. I believe there’s a huge gulf between them, whereas, you do not.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:10 pmBut that doesn’t mean either one of us is a bad guy, or is a dummy, or whatever. It’s just a difference of analysis about each of the two candidates, that’s all.
If this is a discussion strictly about electability (and not principle), then what GOP voters need to focus on are the 4 key swing States that a GOP candidate has to win to get elected: Colorado, Florida, Ohio and Virginia.
Now … which GOP candidates have been popularly elected in those states in recent years:
Colorado (2014): Corey Gardner 48-46
Florida (2010): Marco Rubio 49-29-20
Ohio (2014): John Kasich 64*33
Virginia (2009): Bob McDonnell 59-41
So …. which GOP candidate is more like these winners: Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio?
Alan Miller (bbfc4b) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:16 pmnk, what do you mean I don’t know what I’m asking?
I was born yesterday?
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:16 pm“The world won’t end if the democrats win in 2016.”
The only lasting effect will be that the Supreme Court will be 6-3 Statist Left for the rest of my lifetime and free speech and the right to keep and bear arms will be empty words. The world will tick on, under a grey and godless sky.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:16 pmAre you kidding?
Rubio has faced 10 times as much scrutiny from the press (and from his campaign opponents) than the rest of the field put together.
The MSM is desperate to destroy Rubio now because they know Hillary will get clobbered by him.
The press is easier on Trump because he’s good for business and they figure he’ll govern mostly as a moderate/liberal.
Alan Miller (bbfc4b) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:18 pmA huge part of it was that several percent (it only takes a few) R voters didn’t trust him on healthcare due to his record. Healthcare was a major issue in that election.
And so they decided that they’d go for the sure socialist versus the maybe socialist. This is the heart of Trump’s brain trust.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:19 pmJohn Paul Jones.
Scot, I believe.
You may have heard of him, nk.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:23 pmSomething about giving up ships.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:24 pmYup. Another stingy scrooge who wouldn’t give you a leftover crust of bread let alone a whole ship.
— Why is it easy to catch Scots telephone stalkers?
nk (dbc370) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:25 pm— They call collect.
@ Alan Miller: Your logic is fault because you’ve picked the wrong data set. Don’t compare intra-state elections to lower office to national presidential elections.
The relevant comparison is between Reagan/Cruz and Ford/Bush-41 (1992 version)/McCain/Romney/Rubio. Or if you want, I’ll make that Goldwater/Reagan/Cruz versus Ford/Bush-41 (1992 version)/McCain/Romney/Rubio.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:27 pmYou just have to hurt me, don’t you?
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:29 pmIt must have broken these guys’ hearts every time they fired their cannons — those shells just going over to the enemy or falling into the sea.
— What did the Scotsman tell his son when he got eyeglasses?
nk (dbc370) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:30 pm— “Be sure to wear them only when you’re looking at something.”
Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, and Virginia went for Ronald Reagan — twice each. At this exact same time in the 1980 election cycle, I was trying to persuade people to vote for George H.W. Bush over Reagan because I thought Reagan was unelectable. I was wrong.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:32 pmAnd what is the result of 20 million more democrat voters? It’s a difference in majorities in congress, a difference in presidents, and eventually a difference on the benches too. It’s a permanent difference. As big a deal as the Supreme Court is, it’s subordinate to importing a new electorate.
The margin between Rubio’s version of Souter versus Clinton’s version of Sotomayor, times three or so, would be unfortunate. My answer is that we can do a lot better. The party has torn itself apart playing games with the issues, and is seen as useless by a lot of folks who are voting Trump and sticking their fingers in their ears to all arguments against it. We can scorn that issue all day long, but the truth is these guys won’t be voting for Rubio either.
Maybe they and I are big stupid heads. But the hard truth is you need votes.
Dustin (2a8be7) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:34 pmI don’t care what you say I’ll go to the grave revering John Paul Jones, nk.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:35 pmFormer Sen Phil Gramm of Texas went to Washington to fundamentally change how things worked. He could have been a mentor to Cruz but now he’s backing Rubio — because he’s more electable. I am disappointed in Gramm. He lost his mojo.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:37 pmKevin M,
If the Left is in power, I don’t think they will be content to maintain the status quo. They weren’t under Obama and they won’t be if they control the Supreme Court.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:38 pmJust a joke, brother. You bear no responsibility for that embarrassment. I don’t really know what those men and women went through to get them to that point, but the episode sucks. I think the culture in our military is in a difficult place, and I think it’s a lot like our education and entertainment culture, which were poisoned to the point where it’s hard to see a return.
I keep talking about amnesty because it’s another of these endgame things. I don’t want to live in a country where unemployment and crime are the norm and we live under an oppressive and corrupt lefty government, earning votes through dependency and fear. I think that’s what the amnesty push will do.
Same for military culture. How do they undo the last seven years of policy and flag officer selection?
Dustin (2a8be7) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:39 pmDRJ, the old aren’t as bold. I felt the same way about Bob Dole’s comments about Cruz. They aren’t paying enough attention anymore or they’ve wandered toward comfort and political correctness. In their day, they were lions, but no longer.
Good thing there’s a new generation of Republicans to replace them. The Dems are stuck with the likes of Bernie & Hillary.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:42 pmWhen the world is trending down, you make the best of it and avoid teh clowns.
Colonel Haiku (250e3e) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:45 pmYou take me wrong, Dustin, if you mistake me for having taken some hurt.
Now, I have to deal with some character who has abused the memory of John Paul Jones.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:48 pm“If the Left is in power, I don’t think they will be content to maintain the status quo. They weren’t under Obama and they won’t be if they control the Supreme Court.”
DRJ (15874d) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:38 pm
Yes… so avoid assuming a Goldilocks posture and handing it to them on a silver platter.
Colonel Haiku (250e3e) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:49 pmI’m old and I want Texas to secede, so I don’t think being old is the reason.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:50 pmhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaYqOgeqp9Y
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 3:55 pmYou depress me, sometimes, DRJ.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 4:01 pmNot that I begrudge you that.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/22/2016 @ 4:09 pmhuh?
Alan Miller (bbfc4b) — 2/22/2016 @ 5:02 pmHuh? It was Cruz’s campaign that has been lying over and over about Rubio. This does NOT bode well for Cruz’s campaign. It is not between Trump and Rubio and I believe that Rubio will be the nominee
Victoria (336010) — 2/22/2016 @ 5:05 pmThose people aren’t going to be becoming voters overnight no matter what. But their kids will be becoming voters no matter what.
Alan Miller (bbfc4b) — 2/22/2016 @ 5:05 pmYour first mistake is thinking the left can’t or wouldn’t make them voters overnight. They will bring in a thousand ACLU lawyers and sue in all 57 states and DC to get those votes. Two years ago nobody thought a couple gays could marry. These leftists live for the destruction of our Republic and they’ll have illegals, Syrians and ISIS marching in the streets for voting rights if it means a permanent democrat majority. And it does.
Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27) — 2/22/2016 @ 5:14 pmI see nothing whatsoever to indicate that Rubio would appoint a Souter. I think he’d appoint a Scalia type.
Gerald A (7c7ffb) — 2/22/2016 @ 5:16 pmCruz is running as a transformational candidate, like Reagan was, Mr. Miller. That’s why he constantly talks about reassembling the Reagan coalition, and constantly quotes Reagan about bold colors versus pastels.
Cruz is to Reagan as Rubio is to McCain. Or as Rubio is to Romney. Or as Rubio is to Bush-41 in 1984, when he ran not as Reagan’s heir but as the man who’d just broken his “Read my lips/no new taxes” pledge.
Mitt Romney speaks fluent French, but he spoke conservatism like a second language. I want someone for whom conservatism is their first language. I know that describes Ted Cruz, but I don’t have nearly as much confidence that it describes Marco Rubio. Jimmy Carter was right; Rubio’s more malleable.
I don’t want a moderate Republican because we’re trying to win swing states. I want a full-throated and revolutionary conservative who’ll do more than rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic if he gets elected.
I don’t think you’re at all correct in saying, “Let’s nominate a Republican who’s more moderate so we can win a squeaker election by holding onto Ohio.” I want someone like Reagan who can win a mandate, and who will then act on that mandate.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 5:17 pmLevin predicts Rubio will be the winner/per the media no matter where he places.
Jrt for Cruz (f7d465) — 2/22/2016 @ 5:19 pmCorrection, sorry for the brain fart: “Or as Rubio is to Bush-41 in
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 5:19 pm1984 1992, when he ran not as Reagan’s heir but as the man who’d just broken his “Read my lips/no new taxes” pledge.”Arrrgh, close the tag Beldar.
Or as Rubio is to Bush-41 in
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 5:20 pm19841992, when he ran not as Reagan’s heir but as the man who’d just broken his “Read my lips/no new taxes” pledge.Also, Levin has a FL caller. The people of Florida are not supporting Rubio as he lied to get elected and then did not stand on his word. Rubio is nothing but a career politician
Jrt for Cruz (76212d) — 2/22/2016 @ 5:21 pmGerald A,
I agree with you about Rubio—I think he would nominate a Scalia type. Souter turned out to be a turkey, but at the time, people thought he was going to be a solid choice. By the same token, Bush 41 also gave us Clarence Thomas, who’s been tremendous. And his wife Ginny is a great conservative activist.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/22/2016 @ 5:29 pmBy next week, we’ll be told that Rubio is secretly giving foot massages to Nancy Pelosi.
“3) Cruz claims that Rubio “supports citizenship for 12 million people here illegally” (Debate) and “advocates amnesty for criminals who are here illegally” (http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/cruz-distorts-rubios-immigration-stance/)
Eh, it’s a quibble over numbers. It’s always framed as “what about the 12 million!?” Maybe honest mistake, maybe exaggeration. Who gives a shit?
“4) Cruz has claimed that Rubio supports Cap and Trade.”
Rubio advocated that their state EPA develop a cap-and-trade system to be voted on by the legislature, that they would be prepared to implement if the federal government implemented cap-and-trade. Rubio advocated this in order that the state earn early adopter funds.
Saying that Rubio supported Cap and Trade seems as honest as saying that Kasich supported Obamacare. States are given incentives to accept federal programs — Rubio advocated that they be prepared to implement that program and get those federal dollars.
The Cruz ad presented the Rubio remarks in full context — design the program to be presented to the legislature so that they can consider it in the inevitability of a federal program offering early adopter funds.
Unfair attack? Maybe. If the federal government was just going to offer money to states to implement Cap and Trade, well, it appears Rubio was advocating that they be prepared to take some of that federal largesse and do Cap and Trade — hurt Florida businesses so that the Florida government can get some federal funding. The video wasn’t deceptively edited.
“5) Cruz claimed the National Organization of Marriage endorsed him and “said it cannot support Donald Trump or Marco Rubio because both of them are unwilling to defend traditional marriage””
Cruz merely said that they said it. And they said it. This is 100% true. For AG to claim that Cruz was lying is fundamentally dishonest.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/29/national-organization-for-marriage-president-marco-rubio-a-big-failure-on-same-sex-marriage/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/27/exclusive-national-organization-for-marriage-cant-support-rubio-jeb-after-same-sex-marriage-cave/
NOM later equivocated and said that they could support Rubio if he’s ultimately the nominee, but that doesn’t negate the fact that they endorsed Ted Cruz and that they said what they said.
“6) Cruz claimed that Rubio did not want to use Congress’s “constitutional authority to defund Planned Parenthood,” thereby trying to suggest Rubio was weak on the issue.”
AG just skips over the entire defunding effort here and the shutdown fight. Several of the people who have called Ted Cruz a liar over this supported the shutdown (including Trey Gowdy and Tim Scott). Lots of people were upset that the Republicans caved on the shutdown fight. The only Republican presidential candidates who didn’t speak in favor of the shutdown were Donald Trump, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio.
Marco Rubio skipped the vote on the continuing resolution that maintained PP funding.
If Marco Rubio and his sycophants want to pretend that the shutdown threats were meaningless, they can make that argument (and get Jason Chaffetz and Tim Scott and Trey Gowdy to explain why they supported the strategy). But if Ted Cruz wants to make the argument that Marco Rubio chickened out when they had a real opportunity to strip PP of government funding, he should be welcome to make that argument to the millions of people who supported a shutdown threat in order to stop funding PP.
Now, some people will point out that Rubio has been defended by several pro-life group. And, of course, he has. Those that have opposed the shutdown. Perhaps others have gotten over it. But that’s an argument Rubio can make. It’s not a “lie” by Ted Cruz.
Daniel Minardi (4a6e49) — 2/22/2016 @ 5:46 pmUPDATE: AG Conservative on Twitter cites me three other pieces on the Internet that quote Cruz, in that single appearance, supposedly making the accusation in the manner NBC News quoted him. This doesn’t mean that Cruz actually said it without qualification (since nobody provides audio or video or even verbally explains the surrounding context). If he did say it, this doesn’t mean that it’s a “lie” — as opposed to a mistake made once, since he generally qualifies the statement. And it doesn’t discount the other arguments I made in the post showing that Rubio clearly does not want to revoke DACA. More on his obnoxious responses to me here, if you care, which I doubt.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 2/22/2016 @ 6:10 pmYou very well could be right, in all honesty. However, we probably would have said the same of HW Bush. Souter is simply an example, Roberts another. Justice Kennedy (appointed by Reagan, of course) yet another. They are better than Sotomayor. The difference is real and worth considering when folks like me talk about turning our backs on the GOP. However this issue isn’t permanent the way an imported electorate en masse would be.
As rough as the status quo is, it doesn’t hold a candle to full voting rights for 20 million new dependent lefties. The GOP has to consider this a line in the sand for a lot of voters. Trump wouldn’t be a political entity if it wasn’t.
Reasonable people will disagree. I won’t say the loyal GOP voters are bad people or even wrong. I voted for Romney in 2012 and Rubio is more conservative than Romney. But this tired old ‘slow approach to the cliff versus speeding over it’ metaphor is tired because it’s too late for that now.
Dustin (2a8be7) — 2/22/2016 @ 6:22 pm1) From this blog to Rubio’s eyes and ears,
Rubio’s reaction to the requested resignation of the Cruz staffer was disgusting in my eyes,
and there is no question that it was Rubio, and no one else, that is to be held accountable for his lack of grace. If Rubio wants to inflame controversy over owned mistakes, good night to you sir.
2) Strange, isn’t it, a year ago I would not have had much hope for Cruz to be fighting at the top of the race, I didn’t think the support would be there (these people chose Romney 4 years ago, right?),
did anyone really think Cruz stood this much of a chance?
(NOT whether he was a good candidate, but whether he would get traction.)
And I thought Walker would have been in the thick of it and would have been a great candidate, and his own campaign people torpedoed his run before it began.
3) brings to mind what I understand of the events that determined the outcome of Antietam, and perhaps of the Civil War, before it hardly got started,
the loss of battle plans by a courier of Lee’s into the hands of the Union Army.
Strange stuff, isn’t it.
I am not going to predict what will happen, but if Cruz wins it will have to be a miracle, because this is the same public that elected Obama twice,
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84) — 2/22/2016 @ 6:32 pmand for enough of the public to wake up to the importance of the rule of law and Constitutional government will be a miracle.
Sessions isn’t going to endorse Cruz. Not before next Tuesday, anyway. Sorry, Beldar.
Beasts of England (b16089) — 2/22/2016 @ 6:38 pmAn off topic that I am hesitant to raise, and if I am barking up a wrong tree, may I be slapped down quickly.
In fact, I won’t even mention names.
There has been an ad out where a member of the audience is describing some very sad things in his life,
and then says he now has hope in life (in part, yes, not completely) because of who his candidate for president is.
I find that kind of sad, actually, that a person finds hope in life because of who “their” candidate is.
It reminds me of 2 things:
1) the “plants” in Obama’s crowds of fainting women who needed water
2) the way people thought Obama was going to solve all of life’s problems
And then I saw this person on a show tonight saying they were not really happy with the ad, that it shouldn’t have been built up as a big deal,
and then this person went on to say how someone had told them today about having 4 suicides in their family and some other sad story.
I hate to suggest this is a fake if it is not,
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84) — 2/22/2016 @ 6:44 pmbut it also doesn’t strike me as real.
other thoughts?
Agree with 3. Ropelight.
People are throwing around the word “lie” a lot. The paycheck to paycheck person would assume I think that a politician, a lawyer, a policeman, a judge constantly withholds or obfuscates enough of a truth to turn it into a lie. So the question probably is are Cruz, Rubio, or Trump better or worse than that group of people?
Look at the game of Survivor where the winners are most often the best liars? See http://robhasawebsite.com/ for a pretty good analysis of strategy on how to lie and win. Then they also cast sets of people who feel they have to be honest to respect themselves at the end. (They never win). The game is to catch out the other person as the ill intended liar while you yourself bask in your own perfidy that no one will ever realize til its too late.
So Trump lies. Sanders Lies. Cruz lies. Rubio lies. Hilary is honest.
jd2 (5d041d) — 2/22/2016 @ 6:46 pmThe responsibility for the David Souter debacle lies on New Hampshire Republican John Sununu primarily. G.H.W. Bush is not a lawyer; to a considerable extent he never truly “got” what was involved; and he picked absolutely and positively the wrong person to trust to make the decision, for all practical purposes, as his proxy. It was the second-biggest mistake of Bush-41’s presidency, and a hugely consequential one.
Cruz and Rubio are both lawyers, but of the two of them, only Cruz could — at the drop of a hat — sit down at a desk with a blank sheet of paper and write down for you who he’d name to fill the next three SCOTUS vacancies, plus the next thirty or so vacancies on the federal circuit courts of appeals. And his choices would be based on their records, which is to say, Cruz will have actually read and critiqued their prior judicial opinions.
I’m hopeful that Rubio could and would make good judicial nominations, but I don’t have remotely the same degree of confidence with respect to Rubio’s choices as I would for Ted Cruz’.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 6:48 pmI gotta imagine that’s true. Cruz has to have a great idea of which jurists and attorneys are solid, and which aren’t.
Other than Cruz, we have to be very skeptical on this issue after Roberts.
Dustin (2a8be7) — 2/22/2016 @ 6:51 pmMD in Philly,
It actually wasn’t just a Cruz “staffer.” Technically, it was his communications director. That’s pretty high on the food chain. There was a faked photo, and then a few days later there was a faked caption attributed to Rubio accompanying a video clip of a video clip in which case the audio was faint. The caption was completely opposite of what Rubio actually said—in a brief conversation Rubio had with Cruz’ father, no less.
There’s plenty of criticism which Rubio deserves. But seriously, Cruz’ communications director looks really, really bad.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/22/2016 @ 6:53 pmWell, Trump and Cruz have both spent a lot of time at the courthouse.
Of course, Cruz has been arguing for religious liberty before the SCOTUS. Trump’s been filing for bankruptcy, again and again and again and again.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 6:54 pmTrump is on Hannity right now.
ropelight (97ef16) — 2/22/2016 @ 7:02 pmI said “staffer” because it was short and I thought people would know what I was talking about anyway.
Yes, it was a high ranking person,
high enough that one would hope they understood Cruz and that Cruz would not have wanted this in the first place,
hence giving rise to some like Rubio keeping the heat on and saying Cruz is the problem.
That is why I linked the issue with Walker’s campaign being stillborn by his head campaign staff. I am amazed at times by how some people close to me look at an issue when I expected something totally different,
I would like to think that this person was hired by his reputation at being proficient in his field and not a person of obvious dubious character,
and that what he did was truly a surprise to Cruz.
In the rush to beat and shape the twitter feed and the 25/8 news cycle it must be terribly easy to stick one’s digital foot in one’s digital mouth.
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84) — 2/22/2016 @ 7:11 pm89.I’m still at a loss over those two combatants what surrendered to the Iranians.
We aren’t at war with Iran.
James B. Shearer (0f56fb) — 2/22/2016 @ 7:27 pmBeing the whipping boy is part of their job.
nk (dbc370) — 2/22/2016 @ 7:29 pmMr. Shearer, the Iranians have been at war with us continuously since 1979. We just pretend otherwise, and Obama pretends that passionately.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 7:30 pmYou mean daestrom, yes I know his name, but he is like the mad scientist in that trek episode, who wrecked Walter’s campaign.
narciso (732bc0) — 2/22/2016 @ 7:32 pmUnless something changes, Rubio is on my “is he really better than Hillary?” list.
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84) — 2/22/2016 @ 7:32 pmnarciso, either I’m getting dumber or your references are getting a little more obscure,
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84) — 2/22/2016 @ 7:34 pmthen again,
it could be some of both
Kiss of Death for some? Jon Huntsman: “I could get behind Donald Trump.”
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/politics/jon-huntsman-donald-trump-david-axelrod/index.html
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/22/2016 @ 7:34 pmLOL
I hope he said that on Hannity for the trifecta of annoying.
Dustin (2a8be7) — 2/22/2016 @ 7:40 pmDayspring ran his pac, and he had a record of unreliability.
narciso (732bc0) — 2/22/2016 @ 7:40 pmDoes Trump want to use government (e.g., the IRS) on a political opponent?
Nope. But he does want to fill a spot on the news cycle. Impeach her character a bit. So he name checks the owner of the Chicago Cubs. She stuck her foot in first.
Also she called Trump and Cruz disasters for the Republican party. It’s a three man race so by default she is propping up Rubio.
It’s no federal case. You really think the owner of the Cubs doesn’t have skeletons?
papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/22/2016 @ 8:52 pm149.Mr. Shearer, the Iranians have been at war with us continuously since 1979. We just pretend otherwise, and Obama pretends that passionately.
Be that as it may it is not the place of low level units to act contrary to national policy by invading Iranian territory and attacking Iranian forces.
James B. Shearer (0f56fb) — 2/22/2016 @ 9:03 pmJames! Which low level units have acted contrary to “NATIONAL POLICY” and who has invaded Iranian territory and who has attacked Iranian forces?
Gus (a084f0) — 2/22/2016 @ 9:07 pmpapertiger, I think you just expressed approval for using government to threaten private parties for their political views.
I have to say, Donald Trump is the right candidate for you. But that’s disgusting.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 9:08 pmAnd you are a perfect Cruz follower.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/22/2016 @ 10:36 pmSmart, principled, well spoken, yeah, solid Cruz guy. Checks outs.
Papertiger, you have to admit that if Obama were tweeting this stuff at his critics, you’d think it was totally inappropriate and third world-ish. You read into Trump’s actions a lot of showmanship, but he is still running for a position of great trust and power, rather than playing the role of a candidate. He needs to act the part and be restrained, the way a cop or a judge should avoid coming across as abusing their authority just to rile people up or take news cycles.
Dustin (804029) — 2/22/2016 @ 10:57 pmWell lookie there. Dustin understood what I said clearly enough.
What’s your problem, Beldar?
Trump’s MO is to use the news cycle to further his brand. Always has.
Beldar projecting the IRS into it, that’s of the same cloth as Cruz’s former campaign spokesman conjuring Rubio dissing the Bible.
Obama doesn’t tweet implied threats at political opponents, he makes overt threats out loud in well televised prepared speeches.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/22/2016 @ 11:25 pmI collapsed on the left hand.
It was fair. I caught my breath.
Steve57 (b30def) — 2/23/2016 @ 12:24 amTrump and rubio
mg (31009b) — 2/23/2016 @ 12:41 amGod help America
trump will put ben and jerry in the supreme court
mg (31009b) — 2/23/2016 @ 12:43 amrubio will put tom and jerry in the supreme court
From Beirut to Basra and Baghdad and Damascus and soon has a in the kingdom (that’s where the oil is)
narciso (732bc0) — 2/23/2016 @ 5:55 amDESPERATION! Cruz has lied his way through the campaign with his Psy Ops Scheme/Lie on Ben Carson and his multitude of lies against Rubio and Trump. #DisgusTed
Kimosaabe (dd8954) — 2/23/2016 @ 12:13 pm