Posted on 09/17/2015 7:48:57 AM PDT by Isara
The moderators' procedure was to decide whom they would call on for a given issue, rather than opening anything up for discussion. Frankly, it's ridiculous that there's a moderator at all. The effect with Cruz last night was that there were a few particular issues for which they wanted his comment, so his time was concentrated on those, however much or little it was. It wasn't a general picture of the guy who's polling #3 in most places.
By contrast, they seemed to give Carly a whack at almost every issue, because of the woo-woo-woman thing. She was good on the abortion videos—although, considering the history of positions, I doubt her reliability on life or moral issues—but I found her ranting and artificial on most other things. I found I was glad whenever she stopped talking. And she hasn't got the smile thing down. She's not going anywhere—she's like the horsey cousin you have to invite to the party.
,,, you mean FORCED LOW PROFILE ,,, the moderators avoid him like the plague and it’s intentional for sure .
Most of what the electorate knows of Cruz is the picture painted by the MSM and Senate GOPe. The media is going to fight like heck to try and ensure that the false portrait remains intact by ignoring him or at least cutting him off in mid-sentence.
If the field shifts (and I believe between now and February it will), I see Cruz and Rubio as climbing up the ladder...Trump carries the personality vote/anti GOPe vote, but he really needs to bone up on his material and get some specifics out there or he will slide. Cruz is still my #1 and will be until the primary season is over. One thing is clear: the lower tier candidates need to drop off as does Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee and John Kasich...Let’s atleast trim the field down to a doable debate arena...
“Cruz needs to be on our POTUS Republican ticket without a doubt!
Cruz / Carson
Cruz / Jindal
Cruz / Walker
Trump / Cruz (I don’t think Trump is humble enough to take a VP role ;n)”
Interesting take. I would do it this way:
Cruz/Fiorina (bye Hillary)
Cruz/Walker
Cruz would never put Trump on his ticket and would never be Trumps’ VP
Trump has no intention of going all the way to the convention. He is being bold and brash now and saying all of the things that none of the GOP-e will ever utter, you know, the things that are pissing off Americans and that need to be addressed like the illegal alien invasion from Mexico, the loss of American jobs, the Obama economy, Obamacare, America’s pathetic standing in the world, and the diminishment of American greatness. I believe that he is paving the way for Bush, Kasich, Rubio, and Paul to implode and melt away so that Ted Cruz can jump up onto the stage and take charge.
“Cruz was 4th in total time talked....”
That is a lie.
Cruz is nothing more than more of the same. Case in point..he voted FOR the Iran treaty..go along to get along..at our expense.
That's absolutely not true. Cruz has said more than once that he is against amnesty and against a pathway to citizenship.
April 24, 2015
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, have filed an amendment (#1152) to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, which would require affirmative Congressional approval of any Iranian nuclear deal before sanctions relief can occur.
"The Constitution makes clear that Congress must approve international agreements like the one President Obama is negotiating with Iran," said Sen. Cruz. "A nuclear Iran is the single greatest threat to our national security and also poses an unacceptably high risk to Israel. Reviewing this deal and deciding whether or not to consent to it may well be the most important function of this Congress. It is not something that should be rushed, and it is imperative that, at the very least, the President obtain majority support for his deal from both Houses of Congress before moving forward."
As currently written, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 would first require Congress to pass a resolution of disapproval and then require Congress to muster votes from two-thirds of each chamber to override a Presidential veto. What's more, if Congress failed to act within a set timeframe, the deal would go into effect by default. This process gets the Constitution's allocation of authority precisely backwards.
The Cruz-Toomey amendment would remove these options and restore a more proper process for Congress to exercise its Constitutional power. It would require President Obama to persuade a majority of Senators and Representatives to approve his deal before it goes into effect.
Full text of the amendment can be viewed here.
###
Ted Cruz: Why I voted YES for Corker Iran bill
May 7, 2015 - U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, released the following statement regarding votes on the Iran Nuclear Review Act:
“This bill was a missed opportunity. If Congress had acted to defend our constitutional authority – if Congress had adopted the Cruz-Toomey amendment – then we would be able to stop a bad Iran deal. Instead, the odds are now overwhelming that under these ground rules President Obama will negotiate, and Congress will acquiesce to, a terrible deal that allows Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and will endanger the lives of millions of Americans and our allies.
“I voted no on cloture because we should have insisted on amendments to put real teeth in this bill. Ultimately, I voted yes on final passage because it may delay, slightly, President Obama’s ability to lift the Iran sanctions and it ensures we will have a Congressional debate on the merits of the Iran deal. I will continue to lead the fight to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to protect the national security of America and our allies.”
“But [Cruz] added: “I will say this: The natural next question that primary voters are asking after we focus on illegal immigration is, okay, what are the records of the various candidates? And this is an issue on which there are stark differences.””
Actually, there is another natural next question: where do the candidates stand on legal immigration?
There should be no pathway to citizenship for those who are here illegally. I don’t support amnesty. And I find it really striking at the Cleveland debate, that divide was evident for all to see. Let me step back for a second. Let me talk about the amnesty issue. Because I actually think the amnesty issue is broader than just another policy issue on which people can disagree. President Obama famously said his goal was to fundamentally transform the United States of America. And one of the critical tools he is using to try to do that is to allow millions of people to come here illegally. There’s seven billion people on the face of the planet, and an awful lot of them would like to come here. Now if they want to come here legally and follow the law, great. You and I both come from immigrant families who followed the law.
But the Obama plan is to allow millions to come in illegally and try to grant them amnesty, grant them a pathway to citizenship, and they believe they’ll vote Democrat in perpetuity to keep the big-government Democrats in power. It is a transformational policy, if amnesty goes through. It changes who we are as a country, if Obama and the Democrats succeed in this. And what’s striking in Cleveland, is a majority of the candidates on that stage have advocated amnesty, and not just advocated amnesty, but advocated it for years. Many of them vocally, vigorously, publicly. As you mentioned, you heard my friend Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) join Chuck Schumer in authoring the Chuck Schumer amnesty plan. In doing so, he was enthusiastically supported by Jeb Bush. In doing so, he was enthusiastically supported by Scott Walker. And President Obama.
Both CNN and Politifact did fact-checks of my statement that a majority of candidates on that stage have supported amnesty, and both of them concluded, yep, it’s true. They went through the records of one after the other after the other. And let me tell you why that matters so much. We remember back in 2012, where we nominated a candidate, Mitt Romney, a good man. But someone who had proposed Romneycare. And the problem was, when it came to the general election, when you have a candidate who’s been an advocate for health insurance plan almost exactly like Obamacare, our nominee wasn’t able to make the election about Obamacare. He wasn’t able to challenge Barack Obama effectively on Obamacare, because he had written a proposal just like it.
The same thing is true in this instance. If we nominate a candidate who’s been a vigorous, vocal, and aggressive advocate of amnesty, then the Republican candidate won’t stand up and challenge Hillary Clinton on amnesty, and certainly won’t do so effectively. Because anyone who tries to do so, the response will be: Gosh, just a couple of years ago, before you were running for president, you agreed with me [that] we should grant amnesty.
I have never supported amnesty and never will support amnesty. I believe in the rule of law. You know, at the end of the day, these principles aren’t complicated. When it comes to immigration: Legal, good; illegal, bad.
The immediate problem is shaking loose the other GOPe nobodies in the herd.
Get rid of the distractions, coalesce their supporters, and then it's he and Trump.
He's wise to keep a lower profile around the others in the field who form a giant turd hitting a big fan. Get too close to them right now and you get splattered with crap.
[[Cruz was too polite for a debate where everyone was interrupting, talking over each other and trying out zingers.]]
George Bush was ‘too polite’ and would NOT defend himself or his party against the left, and the GOP really suffered because of that-
[[Carson denied that his plan was amnesty. The meaning of that term is widely disputed in conservative politics.]]
No it isn’t- TRUE conservatives know exactly what amnesty means- it’s only the faux conservatives that are confused and dispute the meaning!
That is a lie.
Can't say, I was just replying to napscoordinator. Looked to me like Cruz's "time share" was around 8th or so. But maybe one of you has a source?
It has been updated......he still talked way more then a lot of candidates......we go through this every debate people thinking he was ripped off but wasn’t. He spoke enough. No big deal. He is middle of the pack on performance according to most political pendants. He knows he isn’t going to win the Presidency but he is getting some good exposure and even sold a few books. He is going to be fine.
And when he was called on, they would cut him off in mid-sentence. It was obvious what they were doing. The media knows who the real threat is.
Trump: 18:47
Bush: 15:48
Fiorina: 13:30
Carson: 12:56
Christie: 12:36
Rubio: 11:21
Cruz: 10:45
Paul: 10:28
Kasich: 9:44
Huckabee: 9:20
Walker: 8:29
Per NPR
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/16/440827414/on-the-clock-who-spoke-the-longest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.