Posted on 09/30/2015 3:19:01 PM PDT by VinL
CALLER:...Out of all the conservative candidates that we have, which do you think -- and I'm deliberately choosing my words this way. Which do you think is the most hostile and intolerant toward liberalism?
RUSH: Well, can I rephrase that? Because those words "hostile" and "intolerant" do not describe the person that I would answer that question about. I know what you mean. You really want to know who among other candidates is most anti-liberal, is the most opposed to liberalism as part of his existence, policy and everything else? And there's one clear answer. Put your hand up if you know who it is. Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz is the answer to your question, Roberto. If you're looking for the Republican candidate who is the most steadfastly opposed to liberalism, whose agenda is oriented toward stopping it and thwarting it and defeating it, it is Ted Cruz.
If that's your criteria.
Now, if you want to ask, "Does that make him the most conservative?" That's another question. To a lot of people, that alone would make him the most conservative candidate of the bunch, too. The two probably do go together. But it doesn't mean he's the only one. There are some other candidates who are also anti-liberal in our field, both generally and issue to issue. But blanket, overall, I mean, an honest answer to your question would be Ted Cruz, pure and simple. Very clever of you, Roberto. I understand what you're doing out there, buddy. It's a very, very clever maneuver. You are a brilliant, brilliant caller out there. I know exactly what your game is, and I went ahead and played anyway. I answered your question right up front, top to bottom.
Yes, according to Andrew McCarthy.
**************
And the same Andrew McCarthy applauded Cruz for his effort:
“If you loathe the deal, as Cruz plainly does (watch his speech if you have any doubt), the objective should be to derail the deal.”
McCarthy goes on to explain and support Cruz’s strategy to enforce the agreement against Obama, and thereby, demonstrate that Obama is in violation of federal law. .
****************
Look, you don’t like Cruz, don’t want to vote for him— that’s your business. But, don’t come on here peddling nonsense that Cruz was somehow complicit with Obama and/or the GOP-e to undermine American sovereignty - or is otherwise furtively supportive of Iran.
Stick to HB1 visas attack, that at least is based in fact.
What being a honest among a den of theives does is expose the theives.
Most of our reps tinker at the edges, they prefer the status quo, this is the destruction of this coultry as it becomes more socialist.
Cruz refuses to play that game. Others don’t follow because he is one of the only people in the Senate who actually believes what he says.
The rest (excepting Sessions and Mike Lee) lie to the base to get votes and power then rule as big government supporters.
You will nevers get the McConnel’s, McCain, Graham and the rest of the turds to do anything other than do what they can to preserve their precious position, nothing more.
What did Bush do when he had the House and Senate to roll back the socialist agrenda? Precious little.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZIsEi2GPNI
Sums up the situation we find ourselves in.
It seems I remember him saying that Obama had “lied” to them
about the Corker bill.
I thought, “Who? Obama? Lied?!” - “Surely you jest!” \s
So, you won’t get behind Cruz?
Remember that we are both trying to fit the legal analogy to the political setting. Here, the “client” is the conservative base.
*****************
No it’s not!!!! LOL The conservative base, (and the electorate generally), is the JURY— and Cruz is formulating his case to present to that jury.
The trial doesn’t begin until the votes are tabulated in Iowa.
That goes for FR, as well.
No, no...conservatives will support Cruz AFTER he rises in the polls. That's how it works, you see. /S
That is the very article I had in mind. This article was written BEFORE the final vote. That makes it all the more puzzling, because Cruz acted as if he was fighting it before the vote, then he voted for the bill, and now continues to campaign against the bill. Tom Cotton of Arkansas was by himself in voting against the bill.
from the article:
“Ted Cruz is not saying Congress should never have a vote on a resolution of disapproval. He is saying Congress should follow the law Republicans wrote, demand full disclosure of the agreement, hold the vote only after Obama has complied with his legal obligations, and keep the anti-Iran sanctions in place as long as possible.”
Notice: Cruz is saying “...hold the vote only after Obama has complied...”
Obama never complied, the Senate voted for the bill, the non-compliance is moot.
Remember, the bill was brought up during the last debate. The context was what they would do with it if they became president. Cruz never said a word about his supposed strategies you brought up. It is all water under the bridge.
“...don’t come on here peddling nonsense that Cruz was somehow complicit with Obama and/or the GOP-e to undermine American sovereignty - or is otherwise furtively supportive of Iran.”
“complicit...undermining American sovereignty”??
I merely recounted Cruz’s vote on the Corker bill. You can draw whatever conclusions you want. As Rush said, the passage of the Corker bill is all about the money American corporations stand to make. They donate to campaigns.
but...isnt the donnie the New New NEW voice of all conservatives everywhere?...
Notice: Cruz is saying “...hold the vote only after Obama has complied...”
Obama never complied, the Senate voted for the bill, the non-compliance is moot.
************
Right, as McCarthy said, as Cruz said, and as you know, the President has not complied with the agreement, therefore, he is in violation of federal law.
Cruz tried to get the Senate to enforce it, but McConnell wouldn’t let it happen. You can’t blame Cruz, because the GOP doesn’t want to confront Obama.
As for follow the money, Sessions, Lee and Cruz all voted for the agreement. Who bought their votes, and for how much? If you are going to malign Sessions and Lee, you should back it up with facts, shoudn’t you? Follow the money for us, dawg.
“Cruz refuses to play that game. Others don’t follow because he is one of the only people in the Senate who actually believes what he says.”
The Senate is a good place to debate issues. That is useful. I appreciate who he is... But I am unconvinced he’s ready.
Time will tell.
touche
“So, you won’t get behind Cruz?”
No. I’m not getting behind anyone yet.
you just nailed the dawg!!!!
Catherine, I was so happy to learn that Rush finally mentioned Ted today. It goes without saying that with Rush’s audience hearing good things about him, it may light a fire under some to support him. He has loyal fans. I think it was Rush’s praising Trump that got him started.
Did you hear him?
I know, right? It doesn't matter what they DO... Listen to what they SAY!!! That'll work, for sure! [/s sommore]
Precisely right - And here, of all places, it should go without saying...
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.