Posted on 04/25/2018 10:12:22 AM PDT by conservative98
during a Tuesday interview with SiriusXM hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak on Breitbart News Tonight. Mansour asked Cruz, “Would you be supportive of President Trump if he ran for reelection in 2020?”
Cruz replied, “I certainly assume so. I was supportive of and campaigned for President Trump in 2016, and I am very encouraged with the substantive policy victories we are getting, whether it is an historic tax cut bill, whether it is regulatory reform that’s unleashing jobs, whether it is repealing the Obamacare individual mandate — which I led the fight to do in the United States Senate — whether it is nominating and confirming strong constitutionalists to the courts. On all of those fights I’ve been working to lead the battle. I’m content to continue working to lead that battle and defend our freedoms and defend the Constitution.”
[cut]
During the 2016 election, Cruz initially opted against endorsing Trump after Trump secured the Republican Party’s nomination following a heated primary race that pitted the Texas senator against the New York real estate mogul. Republican convention goers booed Cruz during his speech at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, when he advised them to “vote your conscience.” Two months later, he endorsed Trump and assisted his presidential campaign.
Never Trump media figures lamented Cruz’s support for Trump’s campaign. Glenn Beck, a fervent Cruz supporter during the 2016 primary, described himself as “profoundly sad” following Cruz’s endorsement of Trump, whom Beck strongly opposed. Beck later described America as a “petulant child” worthy of divine punishment for making “the wrong choice” in nominating Trump.
Since the election, Cruz has largely supported Trump’s policies and agenda
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Turtleface is allowing the Democrats to stave off nominations for multiple months. 15 months into Trumps term in office, we have nominations hanging for up to 11 months (one instance at that time span).
Please clarify for me.
You stated I was wrong and Mitch is leading.
Now you’re telling me I’m lucky Cruz is leading.
Which person do you think is leading?
Yes, I did think of it in terms of district instead of state.
It was an innocent mistake, and it was easily remedied. It still doesn’t change the dynamics of the conversation, and it’s no really a point of argument.
We are both aware Senators are statewide and all you had to do was make a simply point of it. Instead, getting blistered like you are, you had to take any victory you could find.
What a wasted effort trying to explain why your very own concepts as presented in your own posts, are valid even when they go against your guy.
I don’t know many Democrats who are here I’ll be encouraging to vote against Cruz this fall, and I have made it clear I do not advocate righting wrongs in elections as opposed to primaries.
You need to up your game.
Jim Robinson must have missed you, or you weren't so vocal with insults back then.
I was never a “never Trumper”. Cruz was my first choice and his refusal to endorse Trump at the Convention was a mistake. One should also remember how nasty Trump was to Cruz’ family.
Cruz is probably pleasantly surprised that Trump has largely kept his campaign promises, so why wouldn’t he say he endorses Trump?
Rafael won’t be elligible in 2024, 2028, 2032, 2036, or EVER.
As for "crazies" ...
The Cruz-haters are the crazy ones.
My interest is in keeping the Senate in the control of at least nominal Republicans. My further interest is in putting (or keeping) as many conservatives/constitutionalists in the Senate as possible ... and there are darned few of them right now. Cruz is one of the best. Anybody who wants to remove him ... especially in favor of "Beto" O'Rourke ... is stupid, or insane, or a democRAT.
How say you?
There is no doubt that Cruz disgraced himself in the primaries and at the convention.
Nevertheless, he has been a strong supporter of Trump as President. If Trump is willing to forgive Cruz for the disgusting lies and tactics he used then we also should put it behind us.
“If you don’t support Cruz, you’re supporting loss of the Senate to Schumer and his pals.”
That’s nonsense.
The Dims have 10 of their 14 seats up in 2018 from states Trump won.
There is no firggin’ way the Dims take the Senate, with or without Ted Cruz.
I come at it from a different POV.
We cannot forever be held hostage to feckless, traitorous Republicans. We MUST show the will and ability to remove them, in the primary ideally, but in the General if necessary.
We are fortunate this year to have an opportunity to trim the Senate a bit.
Ted Cruz has a lot of things I won’t list that recommends him for retirement. And very, very little that recommends him for reelection.
Still, it’s up to the people of Texas to choose who represents them.
Not me.
Cruz apparently has two modes: weasel words about Trump and ‘I,I I,’ about everything else.
Smh.
So put a lid on the nasty rhetoric. It's counterproductive to your stated goals.
Who can forget GOP Inc’s battle cry at the end of the 2016 primaries, when they ran out of battle cries: “Lose With Cruz.”
Not to be argumentative, but he did not say he endorses Trump.
He said he assumes he will support him. There is a very big difference.
If he had said “yes” to that question you would be right.
He left wiggle room. The guy uses the very same legalese that the Clinton’s do. They’re always wiggle room, so they can claim they never did say what you think you heard them say.
You’ve got that right and at least Cruz voted against the Omnibus bill which Trump never should have signed
Every politician uses wiggle-room words, including Trump; and Trump uses them more than most. That’s OK, it’s part of keeping your opponents off balance.
You make some good points that I concede there. I know the Dems have an uphill battle this year. As you state, they have more up for grabs than we do this time around.
Ideally we need a veto-proof majority. I’d hate to wind up with 59 seats, and Ted Cruz having lost. I’d be surprised if it came that close, but who knows.
Academically, I agree with your logic. We do have to send some of our guys packing at times. If it can be done at a time when we can be reasonably certain of the outcome, I would sign on. It would have to be pretty clear
I also agree that Cruz has a lot more problems than some folks like to admit. He’s just plain shifty.
While he did make very token support for Trump, he did nothing of the sort he claimed here. He is also not in charge of judicial nominations. His legalize tainted comment made it seem he was claiming that.
He’s just not a straight shooter. I’ve caught him in a number of lies, 8 to 10. I’ve also found other instances where he doesn’t come right out and lie, but he words things to they give false impressions, so he can deny he claimed something that his words would none the less cause someone to think he had said.
I should have copied you on my #88.
I quoted your response.
You have been soundly beaten over the head with your own words, conceding the points I had been making to you that you refused to acknowledge.
Now you wish to skew things to make it seem I have done something I haven’t. I’m not encouraging Democrats or Republicans not to vote for Ted. I specifically said so. None the less you come back and demand that I stop telling the truth about Ted.
That’s never going happen.
Ted, is that you?
“I’ve also found other instances where he doesn’t come right out and lie, but he words things to they give false impressions, so he can deny he claimed something that his words would none the less cause someone to think he had said.”
That’s his predominant mode of operation.
Shifty and sleazy.
For instance, he never said, not once, that he was a dual citizen of the US and Canada, or that he was not.
He just didn’t mention that he was a dual citizen when he ran for the Senate the first time out. Then, after he was found out and challenged, he said “I didn’t KNOW”.
That alone, without any other of his sh!t, disqualifies him from further office IMHO.
I coulod go on a rant about TPP but most folks know that story too.
Except, it seems, NorthMountain.
I forgive you, Ted.
Or, and he talked EXTENSIVELY about how he was opposed to amnesty in 2015.
Then we found out in 2016 what his definition of amnesty was, and it was the legalization of everyone here illegally, just not citizenship.
A scumbag who has lived his entire life obfuscating his intent and coloring his words.
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.