Carly Fiorina stands by 2013 attack on Ted Cruz (feels sorry for Boehner)

MofoPolitics ^ | Oct. 2, 2015

[ObamahatesPACoal]

In 2013, Fiorina said of Cruz’s effort to defund Obamacare:

"Everyone could see this train wreck coming. I actually feel bad for John Boehner. And I think Ted Cruz’s tactics were wrong. There is no honor charging a hill that you know you can’t take — only casualties. Although Ted Cruz may have gotten name recognition and money along the way."

She stood by those comments in an interview with Glenn Beck:

" We all want to repeal Obamacare. But here’s what was different then: We did not have a majority. We did not have a majority."

[gwgn02]

Is Snarly still a thing or can we just ignore her again?

[I Hired Craig Livingstone]

The media and GOPe realize she’s a no-go. Marco Rubio is the new Chosen One.

[Patriot Babe]

We should totally ignore her, since she has revealed herself to side with the Rinos. The media and Snarly may think that she is still a thing but in our eyes - NOPE. Adios Snarly!

O by the way on a side note, if any freepers can help me answer this question. Are Hydraulic Jack recyclable? I found this old jack from the 80’s. I do not know what kind of metal steel or iron. All I know a magnet stick to it strongly. I do not want it and I think something is missing like a handle but it is heavvvyyyy. The almost label says 3 ton jack. I don’t have time to sell things, so I though perhaps get it recycled. I saw a place that says “we accept Steel or Iron”. Not sure whether I should take it don’t want to feel like a moron taking something that may not be neither.

[UncleSam]

“We did not have a majority.”

Thanks in part to Ted Cruz’s tactics we now have a majority in both houses. The guy or gal who puts themselves out there always draws the critics.

Carly, What have you done or what did you do to help win this important majority?

[tumblindice]

That sounds like classic GOP-e disingenuosness: “It’s a waste of time to fight our friends across the aisle, and if you do fight them, you must be/ are a glory-seeking schweinehund.”

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I like her less all the time.

[21twelve]

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4552876/senator-ted-cruz-floor-remarks-republican-leadership-cr

Above is Cruz’s recent great speech. Even with the “important majority” the Republicans don’t change things. They had the opportunity to defund planned parenthood, obamacare, the Iran Deal, illegal amnesty. But nope.

[DaveyB]

There is no honor charging a hill that you know you can’t take

Does Carly also oppose George Washington for all those battles he fought and lost? Think of all the casualties and for what? Liberty? She sure seems more Benedict Arnold than Patriot to me. Not likely to pledge her life her fortune or her sacred honor for liberty. She is much more likely to be a turncoat and a seditious impostor. She is not honorable enough nor worthy of the office.

[JediJones]

Can’t get less than zero.

She’s afraid to fight the Democrats but starting a nuclear war with Russia is reasonable to her.

[Calpublican]

Sorry to hear James Woods is narrating an ad for Carly.
He must have been asleep at the wheel when she ran in CA.

[Calpublican]

{”There is no honor charging a hill that you know you can’t take”}

Cruz’ battles gave the voters more information than they would have otherwise had.
The subtleties have escaped the brilliant Carly.

[lewislynn]

All the BS about Cruz and his Obamacare "tactics" aside she's right about what hill to charge.

The hill he should have charged was the Corker Bill...Instead he voted pro-Iran, pro-Obama, anti Israel.

Voting for Corker could leave blood on his hands. It could be the most devastating bill for this country and Israel ever. And he knows it. That's why he's trying to tie the Iran deal in amendments he's proposed/proposing.

The problem with him is he's too stupid to know he's screwed himself for ever getting anything through the Senate. Iran is already flaunting the taxpayer money they've received thanks to the likes of Cruz.

Cruz is a fraud.

[Aria]

There is no honor charging a hill that you know you can’t take

Then she needs to take her own advice and get out of the race.

[Desron13]

"We all want to repeal Obamacare."

Then DO IT YOU SLAPPED ASS COWARDS! What in the flying, flipping hell are you waiting for! Shutting down this governmental insanity is the absolutely best thing you could accomplish.

[CyberAnt]

And .. this is the reason I won’t vote for Carly .. EVER.

[nathanbedford]

[On September 17, I posted the following reply in defense of Ted Cruz' position on the treatment of the Iran deal in the Senate. I was surprised to learn that I had been misinformed about how the system actually works and has worked in America. Given the reality of the circumstances, Ted Cruz' position was not one I would have adopted in hindsight but his position which had to be taken in real time is certainly not one which merits the kind of criticism leveled against Ted Cruz by Trump supporters.

Perhaps it is because there is no other criticism that can be leveled against the man who is never put a foot down wrong which will appeal to real conservatives.

When those supporters, or at least the readers of this thread, have learned the truth about the matter I think they will conclude that Cruz' position was a reasonable conservative approach to a Mitch McConnell/Sen. Corker flimflam. It is curious that Cruz can be criticized for assaulting the wrong hill when that is the exact language I used on September 17.

It seems the Trump is criticized for standing alone and for not standing alone. Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina were standing aside.

Here is the reply:] Yours is a passionate and lengthy reply but a reasoned one. I think it is fair to say the case you make against Ted Cruz is that he is not really a conservative and the evidence for that is his position with respect to Corker's misbegotten legislation on the procedure for legislative approval of the Iran "deal." If that reasoning fails, then your argument falls.

At some point when the TPP (the trade deal not the Iran deal) came into the news I was exercised because I thought that the process was unconstitutional (I still do) in that the Constitution explicitly calls for a treaty to be confirmed by two thirds of the Senate present and the legislation substitutes majority rule by both houses for two thirds confirmation by the Senate. So I researched the matter and I was astonished to learn that I was ignorant, it is well-established constitutional law and practice throughout our American history that instead of submitting a treaty to the Senate it is effective to secure legislation from both houses.

I don't like it, I think the explicit wording of the Constitution is clear but I concede that my initial impression was wrong at least as to how the system actually works as opposed to how it ought to work.

If I recall correctly, Mitch McConnell has stated that the president gets to choose whether or not a "deal" is a treaty and therefore, if Obama declined to submit the treaty to the Senate for approval, the Senate would have no say at all. In the event that has already occurred after a fashion when Obama submitted the treaty to the Security Council before it was delivered to Congress. I am fully aware that Mark Levin has argued that the Senate, in a case in which the president simply does not submit an agreement, could pick the deal up as though it were a treaty and submit it to a vote up or down. I do not think there is any precedent whatsoever for that but it remains an intriguing option. In the event, there was only one vote against the legislative approach so it is not reasonable to expect Cruz to die on that hill fighting that fight which was hopeless.

I further note that forty-five senators joined with Ted Cruz in writing a letter to the leaders of Iran telling them that there could be no deal without Congress approving. Cruz was accused at the time of interfering with the negotiations, yet another example of Cruz standing up for principle and taking flak.

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended the legislation which adopted the old alternative method of ratifying a treaty by simply passing authorizing legislation in both houses. Every senator except one, Tom Cotton to his credit, voted with Ted Cruz on this issue. We have no evidence that I am aware of that Donald Trump made any statement opposing this procedure. If he did not, I cannot credit him with conservatism while one faults Cruz on the same issue.

The argument for the legislative approach was that there would be no congressional oversight of the "deal" unless the alternative approach was adopted. Neither one of us knows for sure what would have happened had the legislation not been adopted, that is, whether Congress would have had any oversight whatsoever. We can speculate and pontificate but we do not know. If Congress had no oversight whatsoever because Obama declined to submit the deal but pursued it as an executive agreement and let it have effect as a practical matter because of its passage through the Security Council, certainly conservative principles would not have been served but further damaged.

With all these facts before us, I conclude that Cruz was wrong and his position was wrong but no more wrong than all the rest of the ninety-eight senators, but I cannot conclude that his position was not a conservative position, if he calculated, and there is no reason to believe that he did not especially since he participated in the letter trying to force the parties into submitting the treaty for congressional approval, that the only way to get congressional oversight was the way he and all his colleagues but one voted to get it.

Since the deal began to be leaked, no voice has been more strident in opposition to the deal than Sen. Cruz. I know he will be participating with Donald Trump and Mark Levin in the upcoming rally to protest the deal. Apparently he has not offended these two men to the degree that they think he should be ostracized.

With all of this, there is no warrant to believe that Ted Cruz is not conservative, we may join in believing he made the wrong choice but it was not an unreasonable choice given the circumstances described above and it certainly was not an anti-conservative choice.

Therefore, I reject the conclusion of your well reasoned but miscarried reply that the candidacy of Ted Cruz should be rejected for want of conservative bona fides.

[21twelve]

I believe it was in Cruz’s great speech at the end of September where he talks about how he tried to stop the Iran Deal because it was against the law. The law being the wording in the Corker Bill that stated congress had to have all of the documents on the Iran Deal in order for congress to be able to review it, and within a certain time frame.

Cruz knew obama wouldn’t get all the documents in for review, (and obama didn’t), so the deal is illegal. Although I guess nobody else thought it was worth “shutting down” the government over.

[DoughtyOne]

[nathanbedford]

Not even rabid Trump supporters can deny that Ted Cruz is a consummate litigator who has proven his skills countless times before the Supreme Court. Unlike Barack Obama who was touted to be a constitutional scholar, Ted Cruz actually is a constitutional scholar and he is also a man with a phenomenally successful record of litigating the Constitution. No one can deny the Ted Cruz is the go to guy when it comes to representing conservative causes before the Supreme Court.

Now, Trump supporters who deny Cruz' is choice of weapons in combating the Iran deal fashion in secret by Obama and back doored by McConnell/Corker. I do not credit Cruz with foresight, that is knowledge that Obama would not submit side deals, but I do credit Cruz with a calculation that the particulars of the deal could at least be exposed under the Senate legislation and it was perfectly obvious, or at least to be expected, that Obama would proceed as he had threatened, that is, to treat the matter as an executive agreement, submit it to the Security Council of the United Nations as a fait accompli, and tell the Senate the stuff it.

Does anyone believe that Mitch McConnell would take up the Iran deal as a treaty when he had already said that it was the president's choice whether to treat it as a treaty or not? Does anyone believe that they would have been more than two or three senators (Cotton, Cruz, Lee) attempting this hopeless task of making the Senate take up the deal as a treaty?

We hear many ignorant but well-meaning conservatives criticizing Cruz for a tactical decision that was fully defensible, although not one I would have made in hindsight.