Posted on 04/23/2015 6:31:19 PM PDT by VinL
Bloomberg Title and Link Only
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-24/ted-cruz-introduces-bills-to-stop-gay-marriage
Sub-Heading-- "The Texas senator wants to establish a constitutional amendment that protects states that define marriage as being between a man and a woman from legal action. "
You do like to troll threads.
My friend, I don’t know how to do these linky things— but down a page or 2 on the Board, there was a long thread—
“At New York Reception, Ted Cruz Is Said to Strike Different Tone Toward Gays”.
And here’s another article on the same subject:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/23/politics/ted-cruz-gay-marriage-2016-election/index.html
Cruz didn’t betray anyone.
In one sentence you've given us the governing philosophy of McConnell and Boehner. "Conservatives have already lost, so conservatives have to preemptively surrender."
That's the philosophy that you think is going to win? You hate conservatives that fight and want a megawimp?
See how your Romneyism won in 2012?
Cruz said he would be a fighter. If he wants to be in the Dole/Bush/McCain/Romney/McConnell/Boehner tradition of tucking their tails between their legs and slinking off, he should realize what's he's doing. Pressure should be put on him for refusing to even vote "present."
Thanks. I was going to type up a reply but yours expresses the majority of my thoughts quite well.
It remains to be seen if their are. Conservatives should be honest that today was not a good sign.
And 1 Senator didn’t bother to show up after promising to fight. Moment of truth - if he wants to be a RINO.
Freeper claim that Lynch is not qualified. If she does something bad in the future, Cruz can be proud there is no footage of him voting against her.
No, it does not. Which candidate are you trying to boost? Just cut the BS.
Quit being a nut case, you are making a fool of yourself, with your “concern”.
What was he doing that was more important?
Do Republicans have to be such wimps. Cruz claimed to be against Lynch. Why wasn't he? Now he can proclaim to MSNBC he is for her? What is that going to prove?
“Nay” votes count for nothing in this case. Passage required 51 “yay” votes. A non-vote was as worthless as a “nay” vote.
Ted did what was important, exposing the fact that the deal was sealed at the cloture vote.
Are you for Lynch. Just explain to me where he had to be that was more important? That is his job.
This is about fighting activist judges that violate state rights and enforce the tyranny of Washington DC on all of us.
Cruz is tagging himself on to one of his big issues.
He fights! That is what we need in a candidate.
He skipped the vote
Every Congress member today got the message Cruz doesn't have the courage of his convictions and will Boehner/McConnell out at the drop of a hat. And all the Democrats now think Cruz just makes speeches for the base and doesn't believe them. It's incredibly damaging to him.
Freepers made fun of Obama for voting "present." Freepers don't do a good job when they bvetray their core beliefs.
Why would he have skipped his engagement for no reason?
When did you become so hysterical about votes that are foregone conclusions?
Thanks for the assistance. I am aware there are a limited number of sources that have specific restrictions, and IU did not want to step on toes.
You sound very worried that this move by Cruz might win greater support for him.
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.