September 17 I posted a reply and on October 3 a supplemental reply.
After you read these two posts I would be delighted to discuss the issue with you because I do not understand how any plausible analysis of Cruz' vote lead any conservative to the conclusion that he has disqualified himself.
Here is a link to the September 17 post:
October 3:
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 fashioned 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.
