Posted on 12/23/2015 6:16:38 PM PST by Helicondelta
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on Wednesday blasted Ted Cruz after a POLITICO report quoted the Texas senator telling a donor that fighting gay marriage wouldn't be a "top-three priority" for his administration.
"Conservatives are being asked to 'coalesce' around yet another corporately-funded candidate that says something very different at a big donor fundraiser in Manhattan than at a church in Marshalltown," Huckabee said in a statement released by his campaign Wednesday afternoon. "Shouldn't a candidate be expected to have authenticity and consistency, instead of having to look at a map to decide what to believe and what to say?"
Cruz's stance, expressed privately to a group of moderate Republican donors in New York earlier this month, seems to contradict his public statements. In June, for example, he told NPR that gay marriage opposition would be "front and center" in his campaign. But in July, he rejected a Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality, insisting marriage is a state issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
You re right.
A few thoughts on this:
First, I responded to an initial thread someplace on Cruz saying homosexual marriage was not in his top three. I thought, “That’s okay. My top 3 would be Abortion funded out of taxpayer funds, terrorism, illegal immigration.” My thought was that would make homosexual marriage less immediate because it will take time consuming court action. I still agree with that. Forcing me to pay for abortion can be ended by congressional act. Terrorist penetration of the US is a huge immediate concern and is intimately tied to illegal immigration.
But, if his answer was state’s rights, then that’s a dodge, and you are rock solid correct.
Christians aren’t looking for an artful dodger. They’re looking for a president who will put the bully pulpit to work for wholesomeness.
What can a president do about homosexual marriage and the scotus in an immediate sense? He can refuse to use the attorney general’s office to prosecute what the scotus has wrongly ruled. He can also sign legislation on marriage that forbids judicial review. He can support an Article V convention.
This was an unforced error on Cruz’s part, will not cause Christian conservatives to flock to him. He shot himself in the foot.
Well said, xzins. I agree.
Here’s the transcript:
Male questioner: “Can I ask you a question? So, Im a big supporter. And the only issue I really disagree with you about is gay marriage. And Im curious: Given all the problems that the country’s facing - like ISIS, the growth of government - how big a priority is fighting gay marriage going to be to a Cruz administration?”
Cruz: “My view on gay marriage is that Im a constitutionalist and marriage is a question for the states. And so I think if someone wants to change the marriage laws of their state, the way to do so is convince your fellow citizens - and change them democratically, rather than five unelected judges. ... Being a constitutionalist is integral to my approach to every other issue. So that Im very devoted to.”
Same questioner: “So would you say its like a top-three priority for you - fighting gay marriage?”
Cruz: “No. I would say defending the Constitution is a top priority. And that cuts across the whole spectrum - whether its defending [the] First Amendment, defending religious liberty, stopping courts from making public policy issues that are left to the people. ...
“I also think the 10th Amendment of the Constitution cuts across a whole lot of issues and can bring people together. People of New York may well resolve the marriage question differently than the people of Florida or Texas or Ohio. ... Thats why we have 50 states - to allow a diversity of views. And so that is a core commitment.”
But even more than it not being a “flat no”, Politico even makes a stunning admission that basically makes the point of this entire article moot:
“While Cruzs private comments to a more moderate GOP audience do not contradict what the Republican Texas senator has said elsewhere...”
Politico is basically trying to make an article out of what they are deeming as nuance, using that to suggest that Cruz is saying something a little different privately than he says to voters when thats absolutely not the case.
Cruz responded today in a press conference where he said the secret tape contains nothing different than hes said on TV over and over again and that he finds it amusing that advisors from other campaigns would seize on this to suggest its devastating for his campaign.
RE: But, if his answer was state’s rights, then that’s a dodge, and you are rock solid correct.
OK, I’ll bite, given that we have the SCOTUS’ decision and “marriages” are occurring everywhere even as we speak, how does a conservative President deal with it if he were to make it one of his top 3 priorities?
Maybe I missed it, but can you enlighten me on why Club For Growth is super bad?
It’s run by folks from FreedomWorks, National Review, and the Heritage Foundation...???
Did I miss some liberal swing they did? (Honestly curious)
Because they don't support Trump. That's all it takes nowadays to be super bad on FR. Never mind that they're far more conservative than Trump, for far longer than Trump has been, and never mind they've been fighting the fight for years and not months.....since they're not perfect and not for Trump, they are super bad!!
some phony conservatives around here now want a dictator, as long as it’s “their” dictator. Some of them even admitted this in a thread yesterday or day before....
By saying it’s a state’s rights issue he placed it on someone else’s agenda, i.e, it is up to states to act. Therefore, it is not one of his top 3 priorities. That’s different than saying it’s my 4th or my 5th priority. It’s saying he’s not in the lead on this one.
RE: It’s saying he’s not in the lead on this one.
Your response to my question still BEGS the question -— Let’s say he were to make gay marriage one of his top 3 priorities, how does he undo what the SCOTUS did at the Federal level?
Well, at least she didn’t bring up her love for Bill Clinton again.
while i am against gay marriage its not in my top 10 priorities considering the shape this country is in
I didn’t say they were super bad and didn’t mean to imply that. My comment is that I don’t think an organization that supports Ted Cruz is giving an unbiased view of Trump.
How about an executive order declaring that the decision in Obergfell is void and directing all government agencies to ignore it and refuse to enforce it?
The President is sworn to uphold the Constitution and when the Supreme Court makes a clearly unconstitutional decision, then the President is duty bound to use his executive authority to overturn it, either by directing his Cabinet to ignore it or refusing to enforce it.
The Supreme Court can make all the decisions it wants, but they can't enforce any of them.
RE: How about an executive order declaring that the decision in Obergfell is void and directing all government agencies to ignore it and refuse to enforce it?
That will create a precedent for the NEXT President ( God forbid a LIBERAL ) to void every conservative decision the SCOTUS makes.
What does this create in effect? A de facto dictatorship.
With that, we might as well govern by executive order and abolish the SCOTUS.
Obama only enforces the laws that he likes.
The precedent has been set.
The President is sworn to uphold the Constitution.
Do you believe that Obergfell was a Constitutional decision?
If not, then you should agree that the President should declare it unconstitutional and refuse to use the Federal Government to enforce it.
Why does everyone assume that when the Supreme Court has issued a decision that it is automatically the Law of the Land?
Why should Cruz bow to the Supreme Court?
If Congress disagrees, they can Impeach the president.
Tell that to AJ Anthony "Lawrence" Kennedy, the Sodomites' Choice Awardee for Most Pliable Jurist. (Kennedy's entire career was quietly fostered by closet gay faculty and California GOP gays, until he was foisted off on President Reagan as a substitute nominee for a SC vacancy.)
Kennedy made homosexual sodomy and homosexual "marriage" </cant and b.s.> a federal issue. So now it's a federal issue requiring a federal cure, and a constitutional amendment will be required to stomp the homosexual lawyers' Article IV ("Full Faith and Credit") attack on the States.
Notwithstanding all of the above, Huckabee's comment rings uncomfortably true (and I am a Cruz supporter), because it's of a piece with what we've heard people like The Impostor and Mittens Romney say and do, when speaking "candidly" to people with checkbooks in their hands.
One can only hope that Cruz was being as slickly lawyerly with that roomful of New York RiNO's as Huckster says Cruz is being with us, the Sheeple.
Unfortunately, one of the places that that practice got started was Texas, during the Arbusto governorship in 1997. A woman employee of Child Protective Services discovered the adoptions being done on the sly and went public. She was fired instantly, unjustly and illegally, and without recourse. The story is archived at The New York Times and is recoverable (in abstract form) by metasearch.
The homosexual influence and even power under Bush 43 both in Texas and in his Administration was immense and well documented: Search under "Republican Unity Coalition", the gay front group run out of the Administration by a top Bush advisor.
Well .... your premise is correct, but the list of "top priority" cures is pretty long: ee.g., Roe vs. Wade and Lawrence.
As for marriage being a "state issue", Cruz can square that circle by pushing through an amendment that takes down Lawrence and returns to the standard set in Bowers vs. Hardwick only a few years before, in which former CJ Burger gave full countenance to the States' power to regulate these matters in this sphere; re-establishing Burger's opinion will cure the damage done by AJ Kennedy, twice, in federalizing homosexuality and then homering for the bad guys.
The wider issue is that the Tenth Amendment needs shoring up, as CJ Rehnquist saw clearly and advocated during his whole time on the bench.
Congress and/or the States need to rein in the Supreme Court and consign the current implementation of Marbury v. Madison to the “Scrapheap of History” along side the Dred Scott decision.
That is the “disease”. The problems with individual justices are merely symptoms.
The disease has remained unchallenged because Congress and State legislatures are populated with lawyers, not citizens. They bow to the Supremes like Obama bowed to the Saudi king... it is their religion.
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.