Huckabee Hits Cruz with Whopper Lie; Then Denies It's a Lie

Last Resistance ^ | January 2, 2016 | Rob Knowles

[TBP]

A Super PAC supporting Mike Huckabee recently ran an ad that quotes Ted Cruz at a Manhattan fundraiser. The precisely edited clip makes it appear as though Cruz isn’t who he says he is.

The recording from which that clip was taken has a lot more to offer. Here’s the actual transcript of the exchange between Cruz and his questioner as provided by Politico:

DONOR: “Can I ask you a question? So, I’m a big supporter. And the only issue I really disagree with you about is gay marriage. And I’m curious: Given all the problems that the country’s facing–like ISIS, the growth of government–how big a priority is fighting gay marriage going to be to a Cruz administration?”

CRUZ: “My view on gay marriage is that I’m a constitutionalist and marriage is a question for the states. And so I think if someone wants to change the marriage laws of their state, the way to do so is convince your fellow citizens–and change them democratically, rather than five unelected judges…Being a constitutionalist is integral to my approach to every other issue. So that I’m very devoted to.”

DONOR: “So would you say it’s like a top-three priority for you–fighting gay marriage?”

CRUZ: “No. I would say defending the Constitution is a top priority. And that cuts across the whole spectrum–whether it’s defending [the] First Amendment, defending religious liberty, stopping courts from making public policy issues that are left to the people…I also think the 10th Amendment of the Constitution cuts across a whole lot of issues and can bring people together. People of New York may well resolve the marriage question differently than the people of Florida or Texas or Ohio…That’s why we have 50 states–to allow a diversity of views. And so that is a core commitment.”

[TBP]

Well, well, well, the Huckster is lying about Cruz. Anyone surprised at the Pastor? I'm not.

Cruz is a genuine, full-out constitutionalist conservative, and that's winning him a lot of votes, so the Establishment has to try to tear him down.

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

Related...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3379033/posts

[BigEdLB]

Cruz’s explanation of his stand goes over the head of a lot of folks, including Huck.

[This_far]

Can’t we all just say alleged?

[TChad]

Ad the end of that ad comes this disclaimer: "Not authorized by any candidate."

The ad is clearly dishonest, but Huckabee didn't authorize it.

[Karl Spooner]

Both of them are so yesterday.

[libbylu]

No surprise. I think Iowans know better else Huck would poll better. Team Cruz will handle it.

[P-Marlowe]

Cruz’s explanation of his stand goes over the head of a lot of folks, including Huck.

You've pretty much nailed why Ted Cruz can't get any traction. Very few people on this planet are in the same intellectual league with Ted Cruz. But you have to realize that STUPID PEOPLE are the ones who elect politicians. If you can't convince stupid people to vote for you, you can't possibly get elected president. If you can't get down to their level, you don't stand a chance.

[generally]

Wow! Superb answer. Cruz continues to impress me.

[Luircin]

I don’t think it’s quite the same as talking to stupid people. It’s a matter of talking to all people, period.

I think that this is one of Cruz’s weaknesses and Trump’s strengths. Trump knows how to talk to people. Cruz knows how to talk to lawyers and politicians. And because of that, he can definitely sound like he’s talking down at people, even when he’s not.

Should Cruz not get the nom this time around, I hope that he will involve himself in a Trump administration and take some impromptu lessons on communication.

A good speaker doesn’t talk down to people; he lifts people up to the next level of understanding.

[mosesdapoet]

This all about Cruz’s position on ethanol

[odawg]

Stay calm, please. But the questioner ask Cruz if fighting gay marriage was a top priority. Cruz said “no”. The rest of his answer is just filler material. Do you really think that the donor understood that after he said “no” that the rest of the explanation meant “yes”?

[TBP]

No, I don’t think he understood that, but that is what it meant. He’s committed to that, but he’s also committed to a lot of other things, including the Tenth Amendment, which comes into play here. States have always regulated marriage (to the extent that government is involved at all, which is another whole issue), and under the Tenth Amendment it’s a state power, not a Federal one.

Thus, the Obergefell ruling is unconstitutional.

[TBP]

Do you honestly think Huckster didn’t have a hand all over it?

[odawg]

“No, I don’t think he understood that, but that is what it meant.”

What the donor understood was that Cruz would not fight gay marriage, because Cruz explained that he would let the states handle the issue. That means, with a Cruz presidency, gay marriage would remain intact.

[TBP]

Check out these links:

http://time.com/3476241/ted-cruz-constitutional-amendment-same-sex-marriage-laws/

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Ted-Cruz-gay-marriage-opposes-stance/2015/04/23/id/640479/

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2014/10/07/scott-walker-vs-ted-cruz-on-gay-marriage

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/23/politics/ted-cruz-gay-marriage-2016-election/index.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/11/ted-cruz-same-sex-marriage_n_6848032.html

[TChad]

Do you honestly think Huckster didn't have a hand all over it?

It wouldn't surprise me, but I don't know.