Posted on 11/09/2015 4:35:41 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
“I just don’t like the guy,†said former President George W. Bush of Senator Ted Cruz, according to reports of a meeting Bush had with donors not too long ago. The 43rd president went on to add that he believed Cruz was an opportunist running for president for personal gain, unlike his sainted brother, who is a true public servant.
Shortly after the report came out, “Bush’s brain†Karl Rove continued the attack on Cruz, saying, "I do know that President Bush has expressed some — on a number of occasions — a little bit of astonishment as to the attacks that Ted made on him. For example, [he] went out of his way to attack his appointment of John Roberts. Yet at the time of the appointment of John Roberts, Ted Cruz was a personal friend of John Roberts, wrote a strongly positive piece about him ... said that both John Roberts and the man who appointed him, George W. Bush, were strong, dependable conservatives."
This is all a bit hard to swallow.
Rove acts clueless as to why John Roberts is up near the top of the conservative blacklist, but the grassroots knows it is because Roberts did not faithfully interpret the Constitution when it came to Obamacare; instead he rewrote the law and kept it alive.
So if what G.W. Bush and Rove both say is the reason they don’t like Cruz isn’t the real reason, we need to look at the history of Bush and Cruz. That history, from the waning hours of the Bush presidency, to today’s primary shake-up and the downfall of Jeb Bush, is fascinating.
In 2003, Jose Ernesto Medellin was on death row for his subhuman crimes a decade earlier: the rape and murder of two young girls, ages 14 and 16. Medellin was an illegal immigrant and sought to have his execution stayed, claiming that during his trial he was not notified of an international law through which he could have obtained legal aid from the Mexican consulate. Mexico then sued the United States on behalf of Medellin and 50 other illegal immigrants that were incarcerated in the U.S. for crimes they committed on US soil, citing the same loophole.
District and appellate courts threw out Medellin’s requests, but the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Before the case could be argued, however, the Bush administration stepped in.
Bush took the position that as president, he had the authority under the Constitution to order states to review the convictions and sentences of foreign nationals in order to advise them of their rights according to international law.
Prompted by the Bush memorandum, Medellin re-filed in Texas state court. Who was the state's solicitor general? Ted Cruz.
After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Medellin’s second appeal, the Supreme Court once again said they would take up the case. Ted Cruz argued the case before the Supreme Court in what was a quite contentious back and forth, recounted below from a summer 2014 issue of the New Yorker:
He (Cruz) argued that the President could not order Texas to reopen the cases without the specific authorization of Congress. Cruz duelled with Stephen Breyer and other skeptical Justices for well over the allotted thirty minutes. Breyer ribbed Cruz: “As I read the Constitution, it says all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state—I guess it means including Texasâ€â€”the audience laughed—“shall be bound thereby.â€
“Certainly, Justice Breyer,†Cruz answered. “Texas, of course, does not dispute that the Constitution, laws, and treaties are the supreme law of the land.†But, he went on, the President’s order, in this case, was none of these. The questioning of Cruz became so raucous that, at one point, Justice John Paul Stevens felt compelled to interject, “You said there are six reasons. . . . I really would like to hear what those reasons are without interruption from all of my colleagues.†Cruz won the case, six-to-three, with Stevens joining the Court’s conservatives.
Cruz bested not only the president, but all of his allies in this victory, and just as the clock was winding down on the Bush administration to boot.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, so clearly Cruz had no beef with Roberts in 2008. It wasn’t until the summer of 2012 when Roberts rewrote Obamacare in order to save it that he was excoriated by constitutionalists across the board.
Donald Trump needed only to point to the Medellin case to prove his argument that Mexico is sending drug runners, criminals, and rapists onto our soil. The fact that the Bush administration was actively trying to get these illegal immigrants relief through international law puts the Bush venom for Cruz in perspective.
Meanwhile, Jeb Bush not too long ago wrote a book claiming that immigration never turns an election.
“If Ted Cruz were a typical politician, he would not have gone against his own Republican President from his own home state; he might have sided with his “Hispanic†roots like Luis Gutierrez, he might have considered his future and his career like Bush suggested he is doing now: “opportunistically.†But Ted Cruz opted for justice and the rule of law where Bush grabbed at power he did not have.â€
But there is more here. If Ted Cruz were a typical politician, he would not have gone against his own Republican President from his own home state; he might have sided with his “Hispanic†roots like Luis Gutierrez, he might have considered his future and his career like Bush suggested he is doing now: “opportunistically.†But Ted Cruz opted for justice and the rule of law where Bush grabbed at power he did not have.
In the aftermath of Bush’s reported dislike of Cruz, Cruz did not counter the former president, but instead thanked him for the opportunity to work on his campaign, where Cruz met his wife, Heidi.
Conservatives were rightly outraged that Bush had been mostly silent on the policies and oppression of the Obama administration, taking back pats as a “classy†guy for not tearing down the worst president in our lifetime, only to turn his ire on Cruz. But as to why Bush did it? After his and Rove’s explanation failed to pass the smell test, a little bit of history tells us way, way more.
Remember W demanding loyalty but not showing it. He let Scooter Libby be hung out to dry for something he didn’t do.
He’s a ‘globalist’ - International Socialist’. That’s why.
I figured it had to be something personal, guess this qualifies.
A Harvard Lawyer, and ex-state attorney general, having argued successfully before the Supreme Court, surely can make a lot more money in private practice than as a public servant, even president of the U.S.
I watched the video. Personally, I wouldn’t do that to my brother or sister. I would/might do that to someone I didn’t like or had no respect for.
I’m still steamed about the Scooter Libby thing. Does anyone know if Cheney has ever commented on it?
Most will not like this video but I think it tells it like it is. I did not know these things about past Republican presidents. It’s long but you only have to watch till the middle to get the facts. He lays the blame at the right place, however.
Jacob Prasch - Palestine fact or fiction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsXh4h5DMPE
I saw Cheney comment on it but it was some time ago, during a very serious interview-—I can’t remember if it was on the tube or something I read.
At any rate what I recall is that Cheney said he pushed Bush hard to pardon Libby or at least...what’s the other option? Offer clemency or whatever.
Cheney said it was one of his greatest disappointments in Bush that he simply let Libby take the undeserved fall.
Yes, I just looked and you can google “Cheney on Scooter Libby”...
He talked about it in a book he wrote, and I must have seen him interviewed at the time.
And W also found time to warn us about those "isms": "protectionism, isolationism and nativism". Never a word as Obama turned Iraq into a Islamic playground, but he just had to chastise (twice) those of us who opposed his amnesty pushes.
But I do have to add: Dukakis, Gore or Kerry would have been worse.
‘The Bushes always pretend to be these mild mannered “we love everybody†people. The truth is they’re vindictive as hell.’
And petty. They are very small minded for all their bloviating.
This is old news .. why are we reposting this ..??
GW Bush has a problem with Cruz, because Cruz fought him on some things he wanted to do .. and Cruz said it was unconstitutional. It rubbed GW the wrong way.
Too bad. But .. that’s not Cruz’s fault.
That was the 20% of his presidency that I (and many others here) were very much against.
Do not get me wrong, I still back about 80% of GWBs decisions, including going to war against Iraq.
On illegal immigration, he was always entirely wrong, IMHO.
Cruz should change his name to al-Cruz, then Bush Junior would love him (and kiss him, literally)
Thanks for posting another great article!
Does America still want principled men like Cruz? His type are as scarce as hen’s teeth today in our nation. From the polls it doesn’t look too good - but I’m still hoping/praying. Great stuff, thanks again!
“Cruz bested not only the president, but all of his allies in this victory, and just as the clock was winding down on the Bush administration to boot.”
I frankly did not like Cruz at first. A personality thing, at least how he comes across on television.
The more I find out about him though, the more I like him. That the Bushes don’t like him is extra points, IMO.
I supported W in both his campaigns. Supported him til the end. His Presidency certainly had flaws as had been well noted throughout here on FR. The first thing that made me begin to question it all was when his mother made some snarky remarks toward Sarah Palin. Palin isn’t perfect either but there was no reason IMHO for what Barbara had said. Since then for me the Bush clan as a whole has gone downhill for me to the point that they are now serious negatives to our side. W as POTUS was better than a Gore or Kerry admin but that is now a pretty low bar to top. Attacking your own side is a bizarre way to leave a legacy.
Cruz is without question my number 1 for president and I have been clear on that for a long time.
I disagree with GWB’s comments about cruz. I am not completely surprised— I am a little disappointed.’
I am not going to let it turn me into a GWB hater. That annoys me greatly here at FR.
I genuinely believe that the nation is on a long term positive trajectory toward endorsing conservative politics. Bush’s compassionate conservatism was a step in the right direction. We are well past that now.
though they are both republicans texas senators cornyn and cruz are night and day.
Cruz can be elected as president. That would be huge and a big step toward robust conservative beliefs. I wish people would not bash Bush.
He did take a relatively tough stand against a community that hates America and wants it to lose every war it fights. The stand in iraq and Afghanistan and around the world was much more robust than his father an even Reagan. It reestablished American willingness to fight a high casualty war against enemies.
prior to that bin laden was right— we were a paper tiger on the ground game.
So what? This was before John Roberts defected to the dark side. Are we supposed to dismiss what Benedict Arnold did because he was once a pretty decent field commander and friend to George Washington? Even the greatest president in our history made a poor command decision by putting Arnold in charge of West Point and he'd be the first to admit it.
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.