> “The problem with all of your arguments is that Ted Cruz voted yes on an actual bill. That bill harms the country.”
> “There is no “strategy” for voting yes on a bill that is bad for the country.”
The problem with your thinking is you don’t distinguish ‘normal’ from ‘abnormal’ contexts.
Using my fireman example again, a fire breaks out, a fireman needs to wield an axe and bust into the building. The fireman is ‘harming’ the building but is interested in saving or gaining something else.
The facts are that Obama was going to lift sanctions with or without Congress. Part of lifting sanctions is releasing $50 billion in frozen funds. That is very serious money that persons in the know say can put Iran over the top to completing acquisition of nuclear weapon technology. But releasing $50 Billion requires cooperation of international banks like for example UBS, Credit Suisse, Citigroup, Barclays etc..
Casual observers of this conflict do not realize that banking is one of the biggest tools of sanctions that exist. Without international banking, the ability of the Iranians to do just about anything is extremely hampered.
The bill calls for a 30-day wait period before lifting sanctions. This may be enough time for international bankers to delay further the transfer of funds. Obama can say to the Iranians, here’s your $50 billion, but if the bank says not so fast, then more time is possibly gained. International bankers respond not only to the Feds but also the ECB. So there’s another non-US banking entity that can be appealed to especially in light of the fact that the Israelis are very influential in international banking, especially in Zurich. For example, their treasurer is the former head of the IMF and is slated to become head of the World Bank.
So the bill is a bad bill but it opens some peepholes to shoot through.
Secondly, it gives Ted Cruz standing to see the ‘deal’. If Ted Cruz had voted no on the bill, he would have no standing. He could argue I am a member of Congress and I demand to see the deal document, but Obama’s people could put him at the back of the line and then cancel. They don’t care one way or the other.
By voting for the bill he can say I am a member of Congress and I want an appointment to see the deal document. If the Obama people move him to the back of the line and then cancel him, then he can raise hell with McConnell and have plenty of firepower for the press.
So Ted Cruz is the fireman breaking into the building to save save something of value. He’s harming the building but that will happen anyways. By breaking into the building he has the opportunity to minimize the damage perhaps even save the building.
I don’t worship Ted Cruz but over several years I have witnessed and researched his motivations and intents. They are identical to my own. So when someone says to me to “stop worshiping Ted Cruz” they are directly attacking me. Ted’s values are MY VALUES and vice versa.
> “But if we are going to appeal to authority, I feel good standing with Tom Cotton on this vote.”
By voting NO Tom Cotton was merely making the statement that the ‘DEAL’ should be treated as a ‘TREATY’. I agree but that ignores the reality. The reality was Obama was not presenting it as a Treaty. I don’t agree with Obama but the reality is he was ignoring those saying he must present it as a treaty. That’s the cold hard reality.
Again the fireman example, if I say the building should not be on fire it ignores the reality that the building is on fire. As a fireman Tom Cotton says “I am not going to bust into that building because it should not be on fire”. Fine, he made his decision.
But both Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton knew the bill would pass. One voted no and the other voted yes. They have the same principles but Ted Cruz chose the tactical approach. Tom walked away from it. There’s no way to avoid harm on this vote just as there’s no way to avoid breaking things when a fireman busts through windows and walls to get inside a burning building.
By voting Yes, Ted Cruz uses a less bad option in order to gain standing to see the deal document, to work with the House to insert an amendment like the one he crafted for the Senate (but McConnell cut off) thereby presenting the ‘deal’ as a ‘treaty’. So Ted Cruz is still working to kill the Iran deal. Lastly, Ted Cruz gives Israeli bankers a chance to persuade their Euro colleagues to tell Obama to go fly a kite on the release of the $50 Billion. It also enables them to refuse cooperation to participate in oil transactions when Iran tries to contract purchase and sales agreements to sell their oil. With the price of oil having collapsed, Iran will not gain so much from the oil trade BUT THEY COULD GAIN ENORMOUSLY from the release of the $50B.
I will use one more example to highlight the problem with your thinking. You appear a person that stands on principles. So do I and so does Ted Cruz. But principles are rules and traditions that have instructions and consequences for not following instructions.
When rules are followed, it allows all of us to live more peaceably and to conduct business in orderly fashion. But when there is an emergency, the rules we abide by are set aside and we go into another set of rules for when things are ‘IN EXTREMIS’ (search the internet on terms ‘in extremis leadership’).
Example: Woman jaywalks a street in Manhattan. Cop detains her and begins writing her up. She’s frantic, hysterical, she tries to run away but cop catches here and cuffs her.
For law abiding bystanders, they nod their heads in agreement with the cop that there are consequences to breaking the law and resisting arrest.
Except suddenly out of the crowd a crazed man with a long knife emerges and stabs the cop in the back and stabs the woman too. Turns out the man was chasing the woman as he had just been released from prison.
Now the woman’s infraction has a rational basis and the rules, the normal rules no longer apply. Rather, another set of rules applies, a set of ‘in extremis rules’.
Ted Cruz was voting in extremis just as I would have done knowing my options.
Lastly, Ted Cruz and McConnell both voted YES on the Iran Bill but they are not the same. They are not the same because each have different motives and intents. It’s like comparing a fireman with a burglar, both break into a building but for entirely different purposes. Are they equivalent because they both break into a building? No!
The problem with your response is that I pretty much agree with all of your analogies, but disagree that they apply to this vote.
I already stated that I believed Cruz thought it was right to vote “Yes”, I just disagreed with his vote.
TO take your analogy of the Fireman, Cruz thought there was a fire so he broke down the door, but there wasn’t a fire.
Your analogy of the knifing is perfect for me — Cruz thought voting yes was arresting the woman, but it wasn’t, it was enabling the stalker.
What you have not done is provided any argument as to WHY Cruz voting yes is helpful. You state that it is helpful in 3 ways:
1. gets his foot in the door for negotiation.
2. Allows Cruz to get the House to make amendments
3. Give Israel time to get other countries to oppose funds
The problem is, I don’t think ANY Of those three things are true. And you’ve provided no evidence to support your contention.
On the first, there cannot be, and will not be, a rule that says that everybody in the Senate gets to see the agreement EXCEPT FOR TOM COTTON and the person who didn’t vote. If there is a restriction on who sees it, it’s going to be restricted based on a security question, and Cruz isn’t going to be on the list just because he joined 97 other people who voted yes. You argued that the bill said only people who voted yes had access, but it doesn’t say that.
On the second, Cruz didn’t need to vote yes to talk to House members about adding amendments. And they weren’t going to add the amendments anyway.
On the 3rd, I’m more surprised that you would even argue that Israel HAS other countries that support it enough to fight the release of money. The U.S. is pretty much it for Israel amongst countries that matter, and if we are releasing money, nobody else is going to stop it.
SO go ahead and post more analogies. But what is needed here is actual evidence for any of the claims made.
SO far as I can tell, there was absolutely NOTHING gained by a yes vote that didn’t matter. And for the bill, the ONLY thing it does that is in any way “good” is a 1-month delay in the inevitable — which will only be helpful at ALL to the extent that the text of the agreement can get circulated, which of course you argued will NOT HAPPEN, because you argue nobody will be allowed to see it except people who voted yes.
Cotton’s argument isn’t just that this should be a treaty. His argument is that the bill just passed actually gives Obama PERMISSION to NOT use a treaty. Cruz voted YES on that — Cruz voted YES on a bill that allows Obama to NOT use a treaty. If they are scoring in years to come, Cruz will be on record as supporting the idea of a President signing treaties without actually submitting them as treaties, and without calling them treaties.