Replies

Your questions concerning whether I support Ted Cruz on the Iran deal and on the trade bill are quite fair. I have anticipated them and I have answered them in this reply

The man is not perfect, he was wrong on trade and wrong on the Iran deal and I have already noted that I think he is wrong on H1B. But he has not been wrong nearly so much as has Trump.

I appreciate the clarity on those issues. You provided a short to the point declaration that those stances were wrong, and again I appreciate that. There is none the less a problem for me with regard to the declarations.

Just admitting he was wrong doesn't exactly cover it on at least one of these things. He voted to make it easier for Obama to run cover for Iran developing nuclear weapons. This means that in five to ten years we will be facing a terrorist training and supporting nation with nuclear weapons. That nation's leaders have a favorite saying. It's, "DEATH TO AMERICA!" That nation is known to supply arms and funding to terrorist groups. One of them is Hezbollah. Hezbollah is in Southern Lebanon. What stops Iran from slipping a nuclear device into it's supply truck for Hezbollah?

This wasn't simply an oops moment. This was a catestrophic world class idiotic stupid as can be John Kerry or Barack Obama level screw up.

Try as I might, I can't think of one thing Trump has done that comes anywhere near 5% as dangerous as this. Can you honestly?

If this doesn't strip away Cruz's claim to be a knowledgeable smart guy Conservative, I'm not sure what could.

NUCLEAR weapons in the hands of Iran. Cruz couldn't see a problem with that? He couldn't find it in him to oppose that with every fiber of his being?

We all know that no politician is perfect, we try to come up with the least imperfect man and we leave it to Democrats to swoon over their latest Messiah. We conservatives like to think that we look at the core.

Okay. I agree with that. In light of what I just pointed out to you, how is Cruz's core looking right about now?

If Cruz couldn't grasp the importance of this issue, why am I to believe he would be better than Trump to recognize the appropriate measures to take on other actions? As pointed out, he couldn't on H1-B. As pointed out, he couldn't on TPP.

Cruz is supposed to be a Christian. He is supposed to be a supporter of Israel. He is supposed to want to protect Western civilization. Iran has missiles that can reach Europe and Israel.

Cruz has not slept with the enemy, funded the enemy, embraced the enemy, voted for the enemy or declared himself a member of the enemy party as has Trump.

Whoa... wait just a minute there. Do you want a do-over for that one? Voting to make it next to impossible to prevent Iran for getting nukes isn't sleeping with, embracing, or voting for the enemy?

Please, tell me what would be more supportive of an enemy than assuring they will attain nuclear weapons in a very short period of time.

Further, what Conservative in their right mind would cast a vote that would also ensure the release of $150 billion dollars of impounded "terrorist state" funds?

If there were ever a bill that would destroy a guy's claim to be a solid guy, more than this one, I can't think what it would be.

At his core, Trump gives us no reason to believe that he is conservative. At his core, Cruz is far more conservative.

I understand where you are coming from. I honestly do. I can no longer agree. Any guy whose core can't provide for him a reason not to do what Cruz did with regard to the Iran Nuclear agreement, is a guy whose core I'm very suspect of.

Something is going on here. This sets off warning bells off all over the place.

The argument on behalf of Trump is boiling down to: 1) he is electable and Cruz is not 2) Trump is right on immigration and Cruz is not.

Okay, but that's only if you believe Trump. I'm at a loss why you believe him on this, but don't believe him on anything else. You believe he is a Conservative on immigration, but he has to be lying bastard on everything else.

Trump is either a dirty rotten lying bastard or he isn't. So either you trust him or you don't.

1) Electability has yet to be determined

Sure. And it was to be predetermined in all the general election years since Reagan. Did you see any problems in the primary processes of those years? Perhaps you didn't during those years, but looking back, we know darn well there are lessons to be learned. Hindsight may not be 20/20, but it should be better than 100/100. Why is it that we as a group can't admit to ourselves that we can't get a Conservative nominated? I raise this issue and suddenly smiles dissapear. Crying stops. Blank looks rule the day. Suddenly Conservatism becomes a body of zombies with arms outstretched lurching soon to follow. What is going on with us as a group? Why am I having to remind folks that we have only elected one Republican since Reagan, and that was the compassionate guy who was such a Leftist he couldn't differentiate himself with Al Gore or John Kerry for the electorate. We have spent sixteen years with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama out of the last 24. The dufus on our watch handed off a nation teetering on the edge. And now I'm having to remind folks of this?

Yes Trump with all his blemishes is still a guy that can stand up and differentiate himself from the likes of Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama. And he didn't vote to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, or cash to fund terrorist operations.

2) immigration: I've already given the edge to Trump, but only an edge as set forth in my previous reply. There is no basis to believe that Trump will enforce immigration law and Cruz will not.

Okay, then you don't mean it when you say Trump has a slight edge. You can't trust him.

You can trust a guy who votes for legislation that will make it impossible to deny Iraq nuclear weapons, and will free up $150 billion dollars to support terrorism globally.

If you're able to explain this away, then why can't we explain away Kerry and Obama's actions? Hey, they're all good people. This was just a small misunderstanding on these folk's part.

There is every reason to believe that, even with the publication of his immigration paper, Trump's commitment against amnesty is not clear. He will explicitly give amnesty to "terrific" illegal immigrants that he has readmitted. What the hell does that mean?

It means that they will be vetted. It means that the felons will be refused entry. It means they have gone through a legal immigration process. I would hope it would mean they could come in only in numbers that equalled our immigration quota for Mexico (or what every nation in addition to Mexico). I doubt that will be true. That does bother me. I realize the danger of chain immigration. It can swamp our nation with massive numbers of foreign nationals. I mean it, MASSIVE.

In our mind's eye, this is what we requested. We requested these people go back to their nation of origin and get in line. I'm not sure they'll have to get in line, but at least they are going back. They will be vetted. They will go through the immigration process.

If this isn't want we wanted, why did we ask for it? If it is what we wanted, why shouldn't we acknowledge it, own up to it, and thank the guy that listened?

The guy is telling us he'll do what we asked of a person in his position, and we're still not happy. What is wrong with us? If we get what we want, shouldn't we be happy?

Scoul after scoul after scoul...

There is no joy in Mudville. There's no joy in Conservatism either. When a guy goes out there and hawks our postions, we try to destroy him.

Why should anyone listen to us and adopt our policies?

Anyone thinking of running as a Conservative, take notice. Even Conservatives will seek to destroy you. Don't bother.

Yours is a passionate and lengthy reply but a reasoned one. I think it is fair to say the case you make against Ted Cruz is that he is not really a conservative and the evidence for that is his position with respect to Corker's misbegotten legislation on the procedure for legislative approval of the Iran "deal." If that reasoning fails, then your argument falls.

At some point when the TPP (the trade deal not the Iran deal) came into the news I was exercised because I thought that the process was unconstitutional (I still do) in that the Constitution explicitly calls for a treaty to be confirmed by two thirds of the Senate present and the legislation substitutes majority rule by both houses for two thirds confirmation by the Senate. So I researched the matter and I was astonished to learn that I was ignorant, it is well-established constitutional law and practice throughout our American history that instead of submitting a treaty to the Senate it is effective to secure legislation from both houses.

I don't like it, I think the explicit wording of the Constitution is clear but I concede that my initial impression was wrong at least as to how the system actually works as opposed to how it ought to work.

If I recall correctly, Mitch McConnell has stated that the president gets to choose whether or not a "deal" is a treaty and therefore, if Obama declined to submit the treaty to the Senate for approval, the Senate would have no say at all. In the event that has already occurred after a fashion when Obama submitted the treaty to the Security Council before it was delivered to Congress. I am fully aware that Mark Levin has argued that the Senate, in a case in which the president simply does not submit an agreement, could pick the deal up as though it were a treaty and submit it to a vote up or down. I do not think there is any precedent whatsoever for that but it remains an intriguing option. In the event, there was only one vote against the legislative approach so it is not reasonable to expect Cruz to die on that hill fighting that fight which was hopeless.

I further note that forty-five senators joined with Ted Cruz in writing a letter to the leaders of Iran telling them that there could be no deal without Congress of approving. Cruz was accused at the time of interfering with the negotiations, yet another example of Cruz standing up for principle and taking flak.

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended the legislation which adopted the old alternative method of ratifying a treaty by simply passing authorizing legislation in both houses. Every senator except one, Tom Cotton to his credit, voted with Ted Cruz on this issue. We have no evidence that I am aware of that Donald Trump made any statement opposing this procedure. If he did not, I cannot credit him with conservatism while one faults Cruz on the same issue.

The argument for the legislative approach was that there would be no congressional oversight of the "deal" unless the alternative approach was adopted. Neither one of us knows for sure what would have happened had the legislation not been adopted, that is, whether Congress would have had any oversight whatsoever. We can speculate and pontificate but we do not know. If Congress had no oversight whatsoever because Obama declined to submit the deal but pursued it as an executive agreement and let it have effect as a practical matter because of its passage through the Security Council, certainly conservative principles would not have been served but further damaged.

With all these facts before us, I conclude that Cruz was wrong in his position as wrong but no more wrong than all the rest of the ninety-eight senators, but I cannot conclude that his position was not a conservative position. If he calculated, and there is no reason to believe that he did not especially since he participated in the letter trying to force the parties into submitting the treaty for congressional approval, that the only way to get congressional oversight was the way he and all his colleagues but one voted to get it.

Since the deal began to be leaked, no voice has been more strident in opposition to the deal than Sen. Cruz. I know he will be participating with Donald Trump and Mark Levin in the upcoming rally to protest the deal. Apparently he has not offended these two men to the degree that they think he should be ostracized.

With all of this, there is no warrant to believe that Ted Cruz is not conservative, we may join in believing he made the wrong choice but it was not an unreasonable choice given the circumstances described above and it certainly was not an anti-conservative choice.

Therefore, I reject the conclusion of your well reasoned but miscarried reply that the candidacy of Ted Cruz should be rejected for want of conservative bona fides.