Posted on 04/19/2016 7:40:31 AM PDT by xzins
It really is quite stunning to see the voices who support Ted Cruz try and reconcile his prior support for the Trans-Pacific Trade issue. Their obtuse position is fraught with intellectual dishonesty, and, quite frankly, a necessary head-in-the-sand approach.
We’ve previously outlined the issue HERE. Senator Cruz supported the legislative trade-passage vehicle of TPA (Trade Promotion Authority) because ultimately the trade bill itself (TPP) benefits Wall Street’s interests.
However, the best way to understand the issue of his support is to actually listen to Ted Cruz explain in 2015 why he supported, then stopped supporting TPA:
You can clearly see, in his own words, Senator Cruz stating he stopped supporting TPA because Senator Mitch McConnell lied to him about buying votes for a later re-authorization of the Import-Export bank, which Ted Cruz does not support.
An intellectually honest person would admit, given the reasoning Cruz eloquently delivered, that absent of the Import/Export bank issue the Senator supported the legislative vehicle TPA and the final product TPP.
Ultimately, the simple question: “why would a Senator support the vehicle for trade approval (TPA) if the Senator had doubts about the actual trade deal itself (TPP)” ?
Secondly: “why would a Senator support Fast-Track TPA, the change for 60 vote legislative support for approval to a simple majority of 51 votes, if the senator did not want to grant easier authorization for the president” ?
The bottom line is Senator Cruz supported TPA. Senator Cruz admits he supported TPA in the video above. Remember also, this was HIS BILL along with Paul Ryan.
TPA is HR2146 (TPA “Trade Promotion Authority” containing “Fast Track”): This House Bill #2146 originating April 30th ’15, became the vehicle for passage of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal.
HR2146 was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as a bill to address issues with retirement funds of federal law enforcement officers and firefighters.
In the beginning of the congressional session, with Republicans now in control of both the House and Senate, in Feb-March-April of 2015, Senator Ted Cruz and House Ways and Means Chairman, Representative Paul Ryan, supported Trade Promotion Authority being added to HR2146.
Their support was most notable when they posted the following Op-Ed which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on April 22nd:
http://paulryan.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398270
On May 12th, 2015, HR2146 passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 407 – 5 (Roll no. 220). (text: CR H2848)
The bill passed the house 407-5 because it was not controversial. It was simply a bill for benefits toward LEO and Firefighters retirement funds.
However, as planned, on June 4th 2015, the senate passed the house bill “with changes”. The Trade-Deal was added and notably included an amendment “adding TPA” (thanks to Ted Cruz) and TAA (needed for Elizabeth Warren coalition). TAA was an amendment by the Elizabeth Warren coalition to add union retraining funds in the event the trade bill resulted in job lay-offs.
TPA with TAA passed by unanimous consent thereby avoiding a roll vote on record.
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2015/house-section/page/H4507-4518
On June 18, 2015 the House accepted the TPA change (Paul Ryan spearhead). The change was the addition of TPA and TAA to the original fire fighters retirement bill.
However, Ryan removed TAA (the financial assistance package for training of union workers – this angered the base of the progressive caucus, Pelosi, Warren, etc). The Senate Democrats, who generally oppose TPP were hoodwinked – TAA was never originally going to be allowed – Senator Elizabeth Warren was furious.
The Democrats in the Senate were furious. They turned to Nancy Pelosi for help in getting the entire fiasco eliminated. However, the White House (President Obama) supported the entire construct of the TPP. Minority leader Nancy Pelosi had to be arm twisted by the White House to go along with HR2146 with TAA spending removed – she acquiesced to President Obama.
Without the training amendment (TAA), HR2146 passed again in the House – only this time with a much closer vote of 218-208, and went back to the Senate to resolve differences. (Remember because of the way it was constructed, the only difference now was the removal of TAA – the training spending)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2146
On June 24th HR2146 (TPA without TAA) Then passed the Senate (Ted Cruz did not attempt to block or filibuster because this was the original plan all along). The bill passed in the Senate 60-38 (3/5ths passage rule).
President Obama now had “fast track trade authorization” to complete the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal and thanks to Ted Cruz Obama only needed 51 votes to pass it.
On June 29th 2015 Obama signed Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and HR2146 became law.
President Obama now has the legislative vehicle (TPA) he needs to see TPP (the actual deal itself) get through the Senate. It would now take more votes to block the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal than to approve it. Thanks to Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan the threshold for legislative approval was lowered.
Senator Ted Cruz voted for Cloture on TPA Fast track trade authority removing the hurdle and concern of further amendments and clearing the way for passage.
Again, just like “unanimous consent” cloture votes are not recorded roll call votes. Thereby Ted Cruz could obfuscate his support. He figured to hide, see how that works?
However, Cruz advocacy could not be hidden entirely. On another bill HR 1314 Cruz voted against an amendment to the Trade Deal that would require congress to be consulted if China (or other nations) were to join after the fact:
Senate Amendment 1251 “To require the approval of Congress before additional countries may join the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement”…
Cruz voted NAY. Directly saying he did not want congress to be consulted before other countries, namely CHINA, could join TPP.
♦ The China Back Door – Remember during November 2015’s GOP debate, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz were saying China is not part of TPP; contrast their voices against Donald Trump who was honestly saying TPP carries a backdoor for China (and Russia) to join.
NOVEMBER 4th – In an interview with Russian interstate channel Mir TV, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry invited China and Russia to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
“We invite people to come join other initiatives, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP. We welcome China, we welcome Russia, we welcome other countries who would like to join, as long as they want to raise the standards and live up to the highest standards of protecting people and doing business openly and transparently and accountably,” said Secretary Kerry. (read more) State Dept Link HERE
Donald Trump was entirely correct. Senator Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz were factually incorrect. Everyone knows China will ultimately join TPP, it’s not a big secret.
BOTTOM LINE – It might hurt Cruz supporters to admit what took place, and worse – to accept the transparency of motive behind what drove his decision making, but it makes no sense at all to ignore the truth of what took place.
Unfortunately, Ted Cruz is part of the Wall Street purchased construct that is currently infecting our entire body politic. The connections to the U.S. CoC legislative agenda, and Goldman Sachs are evident within action not words, along with KtP and obviously his wife Heidi Cruz [ employed by Goldman Sachs, and adviser to Council on Foreign Relations].
For those who still find it challenging to accept the truth in the video below Ted Cruz Explains why he supports (TPA) Trade Promotion Authority:
@01:56 of the video, again: “I support TPA” ~ Ted Cruz
Don’t pay attention to what Cruz says, pay closer attention to what Cruz does !!
Nice deflection, now tell us why Cruz supported TPA.
What it comes down to it seems, bottom line, is many Cruz supporters simply hate Trump. So much hate.
“Cruz is big on doing one thing and then coming up with excuses as to why he did what he did. I guess he can’t help it....it’s the “brilliant lawyer” in him.”
Cruz talks a good game. I guess that wins him points somewhere. Reminds me of someone else.....Obama is his name.
The great thing about being a thinking person is that you don’t HAVE to agree 100% with everything someone says or does. See, you weigh things and decide. Good bad and ugly.
A thinking g person is not a slave to the cult of personality.
Nice deflection, now tell us why Cruz supported TPA.
_______________________________________
because trading is a good thing? TPA is just the authorization of fast tracking trade agreements...nothing wrong with trade agreements?
And there's only one reason to support TPA while 'opposing' TPP and that's to deceive the people...and it's working on a bunch of folks. Only about 25 or so around here but they sure are a vocal bunch.
I will vote for any candidate who fairly wins the nomination. In my mind, that cannot be someone who has already been defeated or who has not even run.
The only THREE candidates still in the race are Trump, Cruz, and Kasich.
If any of them win using the current (lousy) rules, then that’s just the way it is, and I’m voting against Clinton. If there is FRAUD and anyone emerges from Fraud (To include Cruz or Kasich), then that person will not get my support.
I cannot abide the idea of Clinton in charge.
Non eligible, not Natural Born Citizen, Cuban-Canadian, Pinocchio Ted attacking Big Donald at CNN freestyle match.
Cruz "character":
1. Phony summonses mailed out, scaring people to vote for Cruz.
2. Claiming Carson quit, presinc captains told voters "vote for Cruz"
3. Campaigning in the 800 churches, showing video "vote for me" with his preacher/father stomping for him. Rafael Cruz is a Seven Mountain Dominionist and believes his son is the anointed one.
4. "Brilliant" lawyer, did not know he was Canadian citizen and that he is not Natural Born Citizen, not eligible for office of P or VP. But he is excellent speaker.
5. Making phony video advertising with lies about opponents.
6. Uses Trump's wife in advertising "vote for Cruz" and then screams that Trump hates women, while he "loves them" - keeping few extra mistresses.
Just enough to beat Trump in IA, apologize, rinse and repeat?
Liar is the polite term for this Cuban-Canadian. His father was pro-communist in Cuba, imprisoned by Batista, but now he is refugee?
IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN
(Oct. 18, 2009) The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a "natural born citizen" is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President (and VP), it is important for all U.S. Citizens to understand what this term means.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
I am thinking that pissing off Pelosi and Warrren is a good thing.
One sided trade is not good. Besides, why did he vote for it, and then say he was lied to and washed his hands of it?
You can google or bing “faithless elector laws”. When I did it an image map of the states that have them was one of the responses. I looked and saw that the states where Ted desperately needs a win against a Democrat have them. He can’t diddle with them.
Wrong. There are 17 candidates in the race. The others have just suspended their campaigns. This is what Paul Ryan, the guy running the convention, says,
"So let me speak directly to the delegates on this: If no candidate has a majority on the first ballot, I believe that you should only choose from a person who has actually participated in the primary. Count me out," Ryan said.
"I simply believe that if you want to be the nominee for our party – to be the president – you should actually run for it. I chose not to do this. Therefore, I should not be considered. Period. End of story."
When a distance runner suspends his race, he is no longer going to finish.
Politics is weird.
How about I say, “The only 3 still competing.”
At this point, I’m still supporting Cruz as my first choice. Do I think he’s perfect? Of course not. But once again we are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.
In my view here are a few pros and cons of each:
Trump pro:
political outsider, not a career politician
not politically correct, willing to say what a lot of people are thinking
opens up discussions about things that others are afraid to mention, shakes things up
financing his own campaign
RNC doesn’t like him
doesn’t take crap from anyone
Trump con:
buffoon
illogical
claims to be a Republican/conservative, yet has a very liberal past
too closely linked to the Clintons for my comfort
inherited wealth and power
supports eminent domain when it helps him and hurts the little guy
highly inconsistent, I’m concerned about whether he has an core convictions or is just self-serving
seems to have limited knowledge of foreign affairs (this could be overcome, but it gives me pause to hear some of the goofy remarks he makes on the topic)
not particularly bright (no, he’s not stupid, but he’s not super bright either)
Cruz pro:
staunchly and reliably conservative on nearly every issue
the most intellectually gifted candidate in my memory
has great command of the issues and would shred any opponent in an honest debate
has supported conservative positions when it was not popular to do so, risked his own career to do this
RNC doesn’t like him
Cruz con:
lawyer
career politician
lacking in charm
too closely connected with Wall Street (I don’t hate Wall Street, per se, but I am fully against cronyism)
Hispanic (I have nothing against Hispanics or any other ethnicity and no problem voting for them, but at this point in time (after 8 years of the AA candidate who got in mostly based on ethnicity) I would be a lot more comfortable with a WASP (and male) presidential candidate). I am not looking to vote for the first Hispanic or female or current popular “oppressed” group.
Nice post.
Nice to see.
I generally agree. You articulated things well.
If you want to talk about intellectual honesty then everyone should watch the video which you reference and also read carefully the articles linked at the blog (not the spin but the actual articles)
What Cruz says there is what we who support him have been saying for months very time this is brought up.
First the careful reader of the blog itself will note that buried in there is the fact that Cruz ended up NOT voting for TPA, and yet this is still not good enough because he “supported” it before. Fine.
As he said in that video and as he was quoted as saying in the blog, the reason he supporTED, not supportS, but USED to support TPA, (or “fast track”) was because it (and still does) give the president the ability to negotiate trade deals.
First off, don’t we want the president to be able to do that? Even Trump? Don’t you think it would be a good idea for Trump to have the ability to negotiate deals?
That’s the point he (Cruz) addresses in the video the reason for his support at the time: because in his mind (and he’s right about this) it’s the NEXT president; not Obama now, who will be negotiating such deals!! So it’s not like he supported the notion of “giving Obama more power”, again as he explains in the video. It’s under the presumption that the next president will need to negotiate deals an ability, by the way as is again pointed out in the video, that the president has had for the last 80 years! It’s nothing new here folks! And the reason the majority requirement has ALWAYS been lowered from 2/3 to a simple majority was indeed to “fast track” such deals.
Again, for the last 80 years. Again, NOTHING new.
The reason Cruz eventually voted AGAINST TPA was because of the back room deal that was indeed put in there, despite McConnels promises, about renewing the Im-Ex bank! Something every conservative should be opposed to!! THATS why Cruz called him a “liar” on the Senate floor, something we applauded him for just a YEAR ago here on FR but now has masterfully been turned around on him to paint him as a liar.
His entire actions through the whole affair have been nothing BUT conservative and yet in the last year, through some masterful flim-flam from sites like the “conservative tree house” and it’s author, that “paragon” of conservatism “Sundance”, these same acts we on FR just a YEAR AGO RIGHTFULLY APPLAUDED have been TWISTED into “proof” of the “Lyin Ted” moniker.
Josef Goebels would be pleased.
“Conservative tree house”’calling for “intellectual honesy”. What a crock!
I do not think the president should have the authority to form agreements with nations. I consider that to be foreign entanglements, and they should be subject to the treaty provisions of the US Constitution.
So, no. Trump should not be able to forego the Constitution.
At the same time, I also believe that the filibuster is a covert amending of the Constitution by virtue of abusing the provision that the Senate can make their own rules to guide their processes.
While I’m at it I did a little research into DT’s investments...
Title:Study: Trump investments underperformed in 2015
“Trump also argued that several of his individual stock picks, like Apple and Goldman Sachs, have done very well for him.
“I hit the market exactly perfectly,” he said.”
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/274178-trump-investments-underperformed-in-2015
Title:Know Who Else Has Received Loans from Citibank and Goldman Sachs? Donald Trump.
“He’s made the nonsensical claim repeatedly that Ted Cruz can’t “protect people” from Citibank or Goldman Sachs or whoever, because he has taken out loans from them or personally guaranteed loans to his campaign from them.”
“As for Goldman Sachs, Trump is himself a shareholder in Goldman Sachs, which means he has a direct financial interest in its success. One would think that would make Trump even less enthusiastic about protecting me from Goldman Sachs (whatever that means) than Cruz would.”
[DT is super owned by the banks. In fact I think his fear of losing everything is the biggest motivations for running, the other is another psychotic reason]
Ah, another hit piece by “Sundance,” skewed hate-spouter whose real name is Mark Ivor Bradman ...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Mark+Ivor+Bradman
I disagree. A shareholder is not beholden to a company. A lendee is.
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.