Posted on 12/14/2014 10:49:21 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
It’s a question that will prove crucial next year when Mitch McConnell takes the reins of a new Senate: Just how big is the Ted Cruz caucus?
Three votes on the “cromnibus” late Saturday night suggest it could be as large as 22 senators — a dangerously high number for McConnell — or as few as a handful.
Let’s break down the three votes — on filibustering the $1.1 trillion package, on Cruz’s point of order aimed at targeting the president’s immigration action, and final passage.
The high-water mark for the Texas Republican came on his point of order vote, which 22 Republicans backed. While that represented a thumping, it could also be seen as a show of strength against the McConnell forces. Just 20 Republicans, including McConnell Republican Whip John Cornyn of Texas voted against Cruz; three did not vote.
Cruz’s point of order itself basically contended that the underlying bill was unconstitutional because it didn’t block President Barack Obama’s immigration action. Many Republicans, including Cruz, say they oppose the immigration action but don’t think the cromnibus itself is unconstitutional.
On final passage of the cromnibus, 18 Republicans voted no.
But only 12 Republicans joined Cruz in both votes for both his point of order and against the cromnibus. They are: Sens. Michael D. Crapo of Idaho, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, Mike Lee of Utah, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Rob Portman of Ohio, Jim Risch of Idaho, Marco Rubio of Florida, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Richard C. Shelby of Alabama and David Vitter of Louisiana.
Nine others switched to yes on final passage after voting with Cruz to say the bill itself was unconstitutional. They are: Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, John Boozman of Arkansas, Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Pat Roberts of Kansas and John Thune of South Dakota. Johanns is retiring.
Those nine Republicans ended up providing the margin of victory for the underlying cromnibus, which passed 56-40.
Even that group of a dozen might be overstating Cruz’s hold on the GOP.
An even smaller subset of the Senate Republicans — 11 of them — voted with Cruz against final passage, for his point of order and to filibuster the bill in the first place: Crapo, Lee, Moran, Paul, Portman, Risch, Rubio, Scott, Shelby, Sessions and Vitter.
That’s more than enough to cause McConnell trouble given that he will have 54 Republicans in his camp and will need to get to 60 votes on most bills and likely 51 Republicans to pass a budget resolution.
Notable in the group who consistently voted with Cruz are his potential presidential rivals Paul and Rubio.
It’s also worth noting that Rubio continues his shift to the right after helping write the Senate immigration bill last year.
No Democrats supported the Cruz point of order.
Correction, 11:28 a.m.
An earlier version of this post omitted Scott as voting against cloture.
Outstanding post. Best I’ve seen here in a long time, and that covers a lot of territory. Thank you
He is one of the very few GOP members I would support. If he runs for Prez he has my vote.
One might well say the same of reality TV viewers or those who wear their caps backward - is that sufficient reason to ban those activities? Is it the proper function of government to force its citizens to "improve" things?
It is certainly reason not to subsidize them, with taxpayer money.
He is as inside and pro-government as you get.
These votes signify nothing other than he was shrewd enough to get away with voting in his constituents behalf without it actually doing anything to benefit them.
Conserving, don’t you ever get tired of pushing drugs on FR?
Libertarians.
Please add me to the Cruz ping list. I plan on being front and center in helping elect him to POTUS.
Maybe he thinks people are capable of moral behavior without being forced into it by the law. It’s not like this is a novel idea. Alcohol is legal despite its potential to cause immoral behavior.
Colorado and the rest are interesting test cases, that’s for sure.
Buuuump!
[1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia] “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it.
We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
James Madison
A society that can not wield to the simple Laws of God will wield to a bigger stick, count on it.
I like it that you left open the chance of them being brought over to the conservative cause.
Thanks. It’s something to hope for at least. Otherwise we really are screwed.
I’ll be voting for the Democrat for President in 2016, regardless of who it is.
Repubs will control both houses of Congress, so I want Dems to control the White House.
That minimizes the cr@p that gets dumped on us sheeple, because the parties at least need to pretend to oppose each other.
The same party controlling Congress AND the White House always ends up with our financial elites really doing a number on the sheeple.
When WH and Congress are controlled by the same party, depending on which party controls, it’s just a different flavor of poison, but it’s poison in either case.
I can't find the Commandment that says, "Thous shalt not smoke pot - but alcohol is OK."
There are a lot of reasons to be jaded about GOP politicans, but I don't think Ted Cruz is in that category. IMO he's sincerely attempted to put conservative principles into effect.
He meets the "trust but verify" standard.
Great focus on the limitations of what can be done in particular circumstances, and how Ted has done a great job with he has had so far, and how much more he could do as president.
Dittos also on keeping the long-term picture in mind.
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.