Obama attacks Ted Cruz over plan to patrol Muslim neighborhoods

Hot Air ^ | March 23, 2016 | John Sexton

[2ndDivisionVet]

Today, during a press conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina, President Obama issued a personal rebuke of Ted Cruz, indicating that his plan to patrol Muslim neighborhoods was like something out of communist Cuba. The Hill reports:

Obama invoked Cruz's Cuban heritage, arguing the senator was ignoring the personal journey of his father, who fled the island nation for the United States to escape political oppression.

"I just left a country that engages in that kind of neighborhood surveillance, which by the way, the father of Sen. Cruz escaped for America," the president said. "The land of the free. The notion that we would start down that slippery slope makes absolutely no sense."

The president's willingness to attack Cruz so directly may have something to do with Cruz's tough criticism yesterday in which he referred to the president as a "prop" for the Castro regime and said the president should have cut short his trip in response to the Belgian terror attack.

In addition to facing the scorn of the President, Cruz had a contentious exchange Wednesday with the hosts of CBS This Morning. Midway through the interview you'll see Norah O'Donnell score a point when she demands Cruz tell her how many Muslims live in America. To be fair, this does seem like something Cruz ought to know if he's discussing this issue. But O'Donnell then filibusters Cruz, talking over him as he tries to respond to her series of statements:

So you're saying that law enforcement should surveil a number of Muslims and you don't even know how many Muslims are in America...There are 3 million Muslims in America. Law enforcement is overwhelmed. We have a chief of police, one of the most respected chiefs of police who was here earlier who said there are no Muslim neighborhoods. It's not like Europe. It doesn't exist that way. It's impractical what you're suggesting. Also, it doesn't suggest it would lead to anything. It's more of a political point that you're making.

As Cruz finally has a chance to engage with O'Donnell he is cut off by co-host Gayle King who suggests his comments were playing into ISIS' hands. Cruz's best answer to questions about what he had in mind probably comes midway in the interview when he says, "Let me give you an example. If you're concerned with gang violence, gang violence is a real problem in a lot of places across the country."

"What does law enforcement do with pro-active policing? You go into the neighborhoods where gang violence is a problem and you work pro-actively to get the gang members off the street. And, by the way, the people you're protecting are the residents of those communities who are typically the victims." Here's video of the interview uploaded by the Cruz camp:

(VIDEO-AT-LINK)

[unlearner]

“Cruz supporters seem extremely willing to give his closest surrogates a total pass on everything they say.”

I have my criticisms of Cruz and Trump. I am willing to vote for either.

You, on the other hand, joined a conservative forum 6 months ago and have done almost nothing but continuously bash the most conservative candidate in the race.

Cruz is the most pro-life, pro-family, pro-religious liberty, pro-states rights, pro-gun rights, constitutional conservative that even ran this time. His conservative ratings with EVERY conservative group have been in the high 90 to 100 percentile. He has a zero percentile rating with NARAL.

He is hated by all the right people. And oddly, you are among them.

And I’ve already heard your nonsensical arguments that endorsements by GOPe people like Graham, Romney, and McCain prove something. Is he supposed to denounce them for doing what he asked them to do by supporting him? At the same time you will argue how Trump has no obligation to denounce David Duke. Graham, Romney, McCain, et al, are supporting Cruz to use him. They don’t like him any more than Trump... probably less.

And what I am posting is mostly for the benefit of others here. Your track record leads me to believe you are a paid Trump worker who just joined here to stir the pot. Or maybe Planned Parenthood pays you per post. That might make even more sense because Cruz and Trump should be natural allies.

People like you will make it very hard for people like me to vote for Trump in November. But there is still a remote possibility of a Trump-Cruz ticket. It would be a trifecta because they would steamroll Clinton, crush the GOPe, AND make the Cruz haters around here eat crow for several years. Beautiful.

[20yearsofinternet]

If that’s all true, then I apologize, and suppose that maybe we both jumped the gun on each other. You can look through my post history and learn that you’re not correct, though I don’t blame you if you don’t.

Your attack on my “track record” is based only on my join date. You can read through my post history if you want to, but I’ve been reading FR for over a decade and only finally joined because a small board I posted on forever closed up shop. You call me a paid shill, another personal attack (again, this happens a lot but I’m not going to get nasty over it), but if you go only a few pages back, you’ll see I don’t reciprocate this. Another Cruz fanatic, 2ndDivisionVet, also does this to me with frequency, and I actually defend him when people level the same accusation at him as both of you do toward me.

So, I guess I’m just posting this for others too. If anyone cares to believe you, my post history is there for all to see. Cruz was my strong second choice until Iowa, since then it has gone steadily downhill. Donald Trump is not a god among men, but he’s a good guy to rally behind to stomp the GOPe (which, I’m sorry to say, Cruz is a part of). And I don’t hate you or anyone else personally for supporting other candidates.

The only person who has been retarded enough in their postings to seem like a paid shill to me has been JediJones. :P

[unlearner]

Well, I hope I have misjudged you, and we are on the same team.

I have a lot of concerns about Trump. And Cruz is not exempt. I don’t believe anyone should be a blind follower of their political leaders.

I have restrained myself from scathing attacks on Trump which I think are at least as warranted as the ones being leveled at Cruz. However, I do not want to add to the damage of either of these candidates because they are the best we’ve got.

I am more pragmatic than some around here. I probably would still hold my nose and vote for whoever is the GOP candidate even if I loathed the person. But I think the only way we will win is if Trump and Cruz supporters are on board.

Cruz and Trump, based on their campaign promises and track record, are two candidates I am okay with. Neither are perfect, but when compared to the felon and socialist competing for the Democrat nomination, they are night and day different. Both are pro-American. They may get things wrong sometimes, but they will at least do their best to represent our interests.

[20yearsofinternet]

I agree, either would be better than a leftist.

But Ted Cruz has not done anything to win anyone over into thinking he isn’t a globalist. Restoring the middle class is not a part of his platform. He’s running on the Jesus platform. I’m not against people running on their values, but for me, Cruz doesn’t seem sincere, especially after all the pandering to Mormons, and I don’t think knowing Christ is the Truth alone is going to fix our decimated cheap labor/outsourced economy. I don’t doubt Cruz’s faith, but I think he’s played up the religious angle to the point of being a complete phony, and that’s a big turnoff for me. Trump has plenty of negatives, but one of them is not “focus group candidate”. Ted strikes me as a conservative version of Hillary in that regard, whereas Trump, warts and all, doesn’t care about focus groups.

I’ve never gone on a #NeverTed rant and I never will, though, and you can be sure that I wish I was being paid by the word like all the idiots we link to here. :D