The diatribe is not up to your usual vitriolic standards, but its early, so I'll check back later.
Posted on 11/16/2015 11:36:51 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Iowa congressman Steve King, who has relished his potential to play kingmaker in this Republican presidential race, announced Monday morning that he's endorsing Ted Cruz, providing a boost to the Texas senator's organization ahead of Iowa's first-in-the-nation nominating contest February 1.
In an interview shortly after his announcement, King spoke with me about the timing of his decision, the events surrounding it, and how he thinks President Cruz would deal with the illegal immigrants already living in the U.S. - Tim Alberta
Tim Alberta: Your admiration for Senator Cruz has long been apparent, and it always seemed likely that if you endorsed a candidate, it would be him. When did the decision become clear to you?
Steve King: I've said to people it had to be a conviction. So, the pieces began to fall into place. I started to see some of the positions that were emerging from other candidates, and I'm watching it, asking, "Who is completely consistent?" And it was Cruz all along. But I still had not come to a conviction on this, until there were two things that came together almost simultaneously: I'm watching the epic migration going on in Europe [King traveled to Europe and the Middle East last week, visiting refugee camps and discussing the migration crisis with government officials.], and then when I came home, I'm driving and hearing about the attacks in Paris. And a day or two earlier, Marco Rubio's team was attacking Ted Cruz and alleging that he's for amnesty. This world is pretty topsy-turvy if Marco Rubio is equating his immigration position to Ted Cruz's. All of that came together with a clarity. So, Friday, I knew.
Alberta: Did you call the senator immediately? How did you inform him of your decision?
King: He and I haven't talked in a few days. I know he's not surprised, though. I talked to my staff and asked them to communicate with his staff. The balance of this has been through staff-staff communications.
ALBERTA: You didn't tell him personally?
KING: I didn't tell him personally, no. And I didn't tell my wife, either.
ALBERTA: Why not?
KING: I left last night to come down here to Des Moines, and she wanted to know where I was going, and I said I was going to Des Moines and staying at the Marriott. And she said, "Well, why?" And I said, "I have to be out the door in five minutes, so I don't have time to tell you." And so I just figured if I was going to keep a secret, I was going to keep a secret, and that's the way I am.
ALBERTA: Your announcement this morning seemed a little rushed and wasn't particularly well-choreographed. Why wasn't Senator Cruz there with you?
KING: Well, I didn't think about it that much. I'm getting on a plane to go to Washington tonight, and by the time we match up our schedules and get this done so that we can do a big rally in Iowa, another week goes by. And I don't want to wait that week. I want to get it done. I told people as soon as I come to a conviction, I'll let you know. So I actually waited over a Saturday and Sunday. I didn't even think about not doing the endorsement until it was convenient, because I'd given my word I'd do it as soon as I could.
ALBERTA: It sounds as if you felt a sense of urgency to make the announcement at this time.
KING: The thing that galvanized it is that Europe is committing cultural suicide, and we have a president who is seeking to lead us there. And we're going to need a president who can put the pieces back together in a four- or eight-year period of time. So that was the galvanizing part. And because we've got this media cycle that's clearly showing us what's going on in Europe and the mistakes they've made, when you have refugees and at least one of them is registered and turns out to be one of the murderers, one of the killers in Paris, and they're talking about, "Well, we can vet these people" and the president wants 10,000 and then 100,000 and then 200,000 more - I want to be in the middle of this discussion. Because these are things I've been warning about for a long time, and these are the positions Ted Cruz has had for a long time.
ALBERTA: Let's talk immigration specifically. In the summer of 2013, when the Senate was debating its comprehensive immigration bill, what were the differences you saw between Senators Cruz and Rubio?
KING: I always had a positive relationship with both of them. On June 19, I set up a press conference - the longest in the history of Congress - that went from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. I invited people to speak who had positions similar to mine, and of the senators I invited, the one who came over was Ted Cruz. And Ted stepped up to the platform and he delivered a rousing speech that hit all of the notes. It was 30 or 40 minutes, and I listened to every minute of it. It was impressive to me that he had the courage to walk over from the Senate and step up and take that position, when at that time in politics.... the energy was for the Gang of Eight bill. I was prepared to die on the hill to prevent that amnesty bill, and I didn't realize until that time that Ted Cruz was prepared the same way.
ALBERTA: What about Senator Rubio?
KING: I've had a good relationship with Marco Rubio. And I've said many times I think he's the most likable candidate in the race from a personality standpoint. He's just - you can't not like Marco Rubio. You don't even have to know him. And when you do get to know him, you still like him. I've seen this happen to others - they arrive in a place like Congress and are tricked with this idea that they're the one person or personality who can actually solve this problem of immigration. And it's intractable. So I think if he had to do it over again, maybe in his heart of hearts, he might still be holding the positions he held when he came into the Senate.
ALBERTA: Senator Cruz during that debate offered an amendment that would provide a path to legal status for millions of illegal immigrants. His team now says that was a poison pill meant to derail the legislation, and you've said you believe him. But that's an interesting maneuver for someone who rails against the so-called Washington Cartel. Do you believe he opposes a path to legal status?
KING: Oh yes, I don't have any doubt about that. I think he understands what would happen if we grant a path to legal status. The purpose of the amendment, as I recall, was to block a path to citizenship - and to do that, he offered a path to legal status. I wasn't in those subcommittee hearings, so I'm not as familiar with it as, say, Jeff Sessions and his excellent staff. But Jeff Sessions voted with Ted Cruz. And I say - case closed. There's nothing that can be brought against Ted Cruz for that amendment if Jeff Sessions voted with him.
ALBERTA: Senator Cruz has often talked on the campaign trail about being the Senate's biggest proponent of legal immigration, and he had previously advocated a 500 percent increase in H1-B visas. He recently backed off that stance. Are you concerned about his about-face?
KING: It's going in the right direction. You know, we have this thing in the contracting business called "differing site conditions." [King owns an earth-moving company.] You look at the pourings and the plans and then you start digging a hole, and when you get down into it and find there's a bunch of junk buried there, you turn around and tell the engineer we have different site conditions. And that's what Ted Cruz sees - we have a corruption with the H1-Bs, and it's massive, and in reading his immigration document, he wants 180 days to study visa corruption and then take a different look at it. So it looks to me like he sees differing site conditions.
ALBERTA: But the political ground is shifting beneath him. Isn't this the same political opportunism he criticizes others for?
KING: I wouldn't say that. He wants a freeze put on H1-Bs for 180 days while there's a study done and an audit done. And he also wants to give the death penalty to any company that defrauds under H1-Bs. So it will take some time to clean up the H1-B process. Right now I don't think he's changed a position.
ALBERTA: One thing Senator Cruz doesn't address in his policy paper, which you referenced, is what to do with the 11 million illegal immigrants [already in the U.S.]. He has refused to say throughout the campaign what he would do with those living here illegally. Do you believe he's in favor of mass deportation?
KING: I don't know that I can tell you. I'm just reading the positions he's taken and adding them up, and it would be something like this: If you eliminate the sanctuary jurisdictions - about 340 in his document - that means local-law enforcement will encounter people unlawfully in America and adjudicate them according to the law. And you shut off the jobs magnet through E-verify. And you end birthright citizenship. And you build a wall - a fence, and a wall on the southern border. And then this idea always thrown out by the open-borders, pro-amnesty crowd - "You can't deport 11 million" - becomes a redundant proposition.
ALBERTA: When you talk about ending sanctuary cities, you're not just talking about deporting illegal immigrants with a criminal record, correct? You're talking about deporting all illegal immigrants?
KING: What I'm talking about is, when law enforcement encounters people who are unlawfully present in America, then the existing law would be applied to them. If they're not encountered by law enforcement, then they essentially live in the shadows. That's what they came here to do, so they should be happy.
ALBERTA: Under a President Cruz, would law enforcement seek out illegal immigrants living in these communities, or would deportations happen only if they happen upon them?
KING: If you're thinking about kicking doors down and deporting people, I know that's not been mentioned or discussed between myself and Ted Cruz. That's not the way - well, maybe it's the way for another candidate, but it's not the way Ted Cruz envisions this, and it's not the way I envision it.
ALBERTA: Lastly, you and Senator Cruz are on opposite sides of one important issue to Iowans. The Renewable Fuel Standard is near and dear to your heart, and Senator Cruz opposes it.
KING: [Laughing] That's something that's workable. But I can't go deeper into it right now, because I've got another call to get on.
- Tim Alberta is chief political correspondent for National Review.
For the 236 Republicans like Steve King who decided that Paul Ryan was their man to be Speaker of the House the challenge is to re-establish some common ground with the grassroots.
Supporting Paul Ryan is contrary to the will of the people and supporting Donald Trump may get you in deep trouble with the big money special interests that don’t want him to win.
Ben Carson is a ‘wild card’ and well others are perceived as full RINO’s or hybrid RINO’s.
So King has figured out it would be wise to endorse Ted Cruz.
I suspect many more of those I consider ‘fake conservatives’ in Congress will find Ted Cruz, my candidate for POTUS, to be a safe place to park their endorsement in the face of the wrath of us grassroots people who know they are leading this nation into the ground with the leadership they endorse in the House from Boehner to Ryan.
That quote stood out to me also. I will be more relieved and happy to see Cruz inaugurated than Reagan.
In 2013, Sen. Cruz proposed amendments to the "Gang of 8" bill that would strengthen border security, expand green card opportunities, increase high-skilled "H1B" visas...
Did he propose amendments to a bill that he had no intention of voting for?
Was he lying then, or is he lying now?
You look at the pourings and the plans and then you start digging a holeSo the most brilliant conservative lawyer that's ever walked into the Senate chamber never knew, until today, there is "massive" corruption with the H1B's. And apparently neither did King...
He's digging holes alright.
Apparently the Ted Cruz campaign still isn’t stating they will be doing any deportations. They told Bloomberg that everything is still on the table, and that he has no intention of talking about deportation or granting legal status or anything at all until after they “secure the border.”
Obviously, you can’t leave that sort of thing as an option and then tell people that Rubio is lying about you favoring the granting of legal status.
Sessions did indeed vote for the amendments with the idea that they would sabotage the bill, but Sessions also never came out, as Cruz did, advocating for “common sense immigration reform” that allows illegals to “come out of the shadows.”
"Trump said Wednesday in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash that as president he would deport all undocumented immigrants and then allow the "good ones" to reenter the country through an "expedited process" and live in the U.S. legally, though not as citizens...."
He’s a lawyer...
So your response to Cruz lying about his immigration views is to quote Trump? At least we know what Trump’s plan is, and can calculate its superiority over others. With Cruz, he’s spreading BS around and hoping we’re stupid enough to be happy with slogans.
So King falls for Cruz’s avoidance of what he’ll do with the current illegals—other than having said previously that he’d legalize them.
Cruz’s big deceit is defining amnesty only as providing with citizenship.
Ryan had a lot of votes already. Paul Ryan could have booted King off the immigration committee and Trey Gomez(South Carolina), Raul LaRazaPoodle(Idaho) & Ted Pinata Poe(Texas 2nd CD) would be holding committees asking Dreamers want their preferred kind of amnesty is.
I think King will eventually support Trump later on. I think this is because he knows he can hurt Rubio on amnesty at this point in time. Trump is already out there saying the right things.
King is against Rubio. Rubio and Cruz are fighting over immigration. Cruz has to come out and say he supports 90% of King’s plan. Then King’s plan goes mainstream and he is in a proxy argument with Rubiocare.
For all the trashing of Kim Jong Rubio, Steve King and Rubio haven’t been able to get close enough to debate.
“...Cruz, meanwhile, has discussed sponsoring a Senate version of the Resettlement Accountability National Security Act, which would suspend the refugee resettlement program until the Government Accountability Office conducts a review, according to the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas).
Republicans are seeking to drive a wedge between Obama and congressional Democrats ahead of an election year when national security is expected to be a top concern of voters. So far, Democratic leaders have kept their ranks mostly unified, but defectors are already emerging.
Centrist Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) signed a letter sponsored by two vulnerable Republican incumbents, Sens. Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), urging that no refugee from the Syrian crisis be admitted to the country “unless the U.S. government can guarantee, with 100 percent assurance, that they are not members, supporters, or sympathizers of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.”
Legislation to restrict Obama’s refugee program could set up a tough vote for some Democrats, who may be forced to choose between backing their president and responding to public fears about a potential terrorist attack in the United States.
The brewing fight could become an obstacle to finishing a year-end government funding bill by Dec. 11. Republicans want to include language in the omnibus measure that would halt federal funding for resettlement.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) earlier this month wrote a letter to Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) - the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee - and ranking Democrat Barbara Mikulski (Md.), threatening to block funding for refugees until the administration crafts a comprehensive national security plan.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, said Congress should cancel what he called the “blank check” for refugee resettlement in the omnibus.
“Under current admissions policies, we can be expected to resettle another nearly 700,000 migrants from Muslim countries over the next five years,” Sessions wrote....”
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/260337-pressure-builds-to-block-refugees
“KING: If you’re thinking about kicking doors down and deporting people, I know that’s not been mentioned or discussed between myself and Ted Cruz. That’s not the way - well, maybe it’s the way for another candidate, but it’s not the way Ted Cruz envisions this, and it’s not the way I envision it.”
Extremely dishonest statement. Trump has never hinted he would do that, except implied for violent gang members.
You and many Trump supporters sound like Obama/Perot bots from past elections. I can’t help but shake my head and roll my eyes. He is a mod/lib at best and using populist rantings to draw weak minded people. And so far it has worked. Glad it has blown away Jeb but he would be a disaster in the general and even more of a disaster if elected. Ted Cruz all the way!
The diatribe is not up to your usual vitriolic standards, but its early, so I'll check back later.
What of Trump’s recent past membership in the Democratic Party, his support for the Democratic Party Leadership that still serves on the hill, his agreement (past and or present) with universal healthcare, abortion, imminent domain, gun control, higher taxes, Wall Street bailout....?
I guess Trump is evolving like a revolving door.
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.