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.
So my daughters say, Dad didn't you vote for Rand, as they explain away an inconvenient abortion as they smoke a dubbie.
You voted for someone that approves didn't you? How can you rail against me about moral issues?
He wasn't my first choice. I liked Ted Cruz, who shares my principles, but Rand was selected as the worst of two evils. I am sorry you killed your child and are smoking dubbies. My fault.
Then you would explain to your daughter that just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. For instance, alcohol is legal. Surely you’re not saying that this keeps you from making a moral argument against its use or abuse.
Do you have children? They are impacted by what is approved and legal as they search out their meaning in life. We hope they adopt our principles, but they are their own entities when they reach 18 (mine are 18 and 19). When there is nothing Taboo about behavior because the leaders do not suggest it is, then an argument ensues that doesn't need to happen.
How can I support amoral or waffling positions from leaders I vote for without weakening the principles I stand for. No Drugs or Baby killing, period! You need to be a productive responsible contributor to our nation.
Fortunately they see Obama for who he is. Admitting I voted for someone who is willing to leave openings for bad behavior is unacceptable. That is why I didn't vote for Romney.
So you favor making everything that you consider morally wrong illegal then, I guess. Because I don’t see any limiting principle in what you’re arguing.
I’m not a Rand Paul supporter but in think your arguments against him are pretty weak.
I don't want my daughters to abuse alcohol as their parents don't. If they choose too, I will handle it the same way as them smoking pot. Stop abusing it, or be an unsupported loser that will become a burden on society. Fortunately where we live, using pot will put you in jail.
Watch "Up In Smoke" if you want clarity. "It's me Dave, open up, i've got the stuff." "Who?" "It's me Dave, open up, i've got the stuff". "Dave's not here."
Well, what can I say. If marijuana is an important issue to you and you don’t like Rand Paul’s position on it, then don’t support him.
I like Ted Cruz. He might be able to help stop the slide away from American culture quicker than anyone else I have heard. Rand is confused about what being conservative is and doesn't embrace it in all aspects of life. Too picky, choosey and trying to be hipster.
Yeah, I like Ted Cruz too although his comments on torture last week were a little disappointing.
I agree. I hope he examines the record and can speak intelligently in the future.
Not really he just isn't opposed to those behaviors that would make it so.
He was wrong on that issue and it will soon be absolutely proved in those states that choose to ignore reality. Stoners improve absolutely nothing in any society.
It took me a few days to filter through party options. I quickly settled into the Tea Party. It took me a few days longer to filter the 2016 candidates down to ONE - Cruz only. I've been monitoring him for years and he certainly has convinced NumbersUSA to always give him an A+ on reducing immigration. His principled stand and emotional oratory skills on display last night is going to give him hero status to tens of millions. I don't think Boehner and Mitch have clue as to the wave that is about to hit them.
” I don’t know how they vote for the Cruz motion, then turn around and vote for cromnibus. Maybe their Cruz votes were just for show.”
It’s all for show.
And to everyone here who loves Cruz so much, can anyone explain to me how much more effective he’d be as President in convincing people in his own party to reverse all this? He can’t even move the Senate.
I still don’t see anything more than a Palin-like Cult of personality around Cruz - in the end, seems likely nothing will change and that even his performances are just for show.
Call me jaded. But after the past few years of the GOP kabuki theater, how can you not be?
Rubio is a Bushie. Jeb draped in darker skin.
> “And to everyone here who loves Cruz so much, can anyone explain to me how much more effective he’d be as President in convincing people in his own party to reverse all this? He can’t even move the Senate.”
He can easily move the Senate when a critical mass of its members realize he controls their constituents. He need not be a Senator to do so. He will be much more influential as a Presidential Candidate to this group.
He need not control all Senators but only a critical mass, then many others will follow. He is winning in that the trend is many more Senators are getting behind him. Others are annoyed and angered, but then they can’t face their constituents with their annoyance so they meander around day to day with a ‘deer caught in the headlights’ look.
The US Senate is comprised of many followers, not leaders. They mostly follow the money and McConnell is the go-to-guy with the money as all lobbyists call on his office to bring the checks of their clients.
The screen writer of ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington’ (Frank Capra, 1939) nailed it 75 years ago. You can view that film for $2.99 on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8Mon_wODYc); viewing it provides the fastest way to learn some of the most important behavioral patterns of the US Senate.
The Senate without an active border collie is like a group of goats waiting for someone to bring them some sugar; it’s a sleepy old boy’s club that hates disruption and activism.
Since repeal of the 17th Amendment the US Senate has become a body that caters to lobbyists that bring their client’s paid for demands. McConnell is their gatekeeper. In my view is he is a mediocre politician who happens to come from a state where many people go along to get along because there is no opportunity for them in that state (Kentucky). In other words, he is a loser from a loser state. Although he wins elections he loses the interest of Americans on a national scale because Americans can’t look at such a guy and think he represents them. He’s the perfect toady for those who ‘pay-to-play’ in Washington.
Cruz is a populist and is betting OVER TIME, that in the longer run the American electorate will overwhelm the toadies in the Senate and the House by trumping their actions and false words at the polls. Cruz is winning but the process of turning it around takes years. It requires energy, passion, dedication, tenacity, persistence and perseverance.
Cruz’ Modus Operandi is based on his superior mastery of the history and meaning of the US Constitution. All of his critics eventually find themselves arguing against the whole idea of America itself. They usually go through phases of annoyance, irritation, Ad Hominem reponses (e.g. “whackobird”, “extreme radical” etc.) but eventually when they get called on the carpet they clam up because whatever they wish to say is going to look bad for them in the historical record. In other words, Cruz puts them in a position of slapping themselves and they don’t like it. It’s actually comical.
No one has been able to take down Cruz because he too smart for them. He can whip anyone of them in debate and they know it.
In short to answer your question, look at the trend. Look at the numbers that are lining up behind Ted Cruz. The numbers are growing. He is winning. 2016 is his to own.
We Texans need to start burning up the Cornymans line. That is if the cowardly nutless gutless imp will answer the phone.
I call his Senate office and his local offices when something hot is happening and normally voicemail. And normlly that is full.
Tried and prayed we could primary him this last go round
Portman has been a disappointment in the senate many times
Washington DC eats men’s souls
The more I think about it the more I think we all put these Senators on too much of an intellectual pedestal. I think the most likely explaination is the simplest: those who voted for the point of order but yet also for the Cromnibus probably didn't realize that their vote for the Cromnibus was still in support of the President's illegal amnesty. That is, they were probably under the impression that the vote for the point of order was a seperate vote entirely. For some thing else entirely.
I'm more and more convinced with each passing day that there are indeed low information voters in Congress as well. It's the most charitable I can be really. Regardless it's probably right. I just can't see everyone in Washington being as clever as would be needed to believe in such a vast Establishment conspiracy.
No, most likely there are many sheeple in Congress too, led around by others. Remember these votes are done at the same time for everyone so no one really knows how another will vote. When they vote they do so themselves it's not as if Mconnel is pushing the button for them. So I think those who voted for the point of order but also for Cromnibus said to themselves at the Cromnibus vote as they were actually voting "Ok, now that Cruz got what he wanted so now it's time to vote for this OTHER thing that's more important. It doesn't have anything to do with Cruz anyway so it's a win win for me if I vote for this now". This uninformed decision explains also the three who didn't vote at all. They just decided "Yah, I'm not so sure how to vote here so I'm just not gonna vote".
So all in all this isn't bad for Cruz and Sessions. They just need to reach out to these uninformed more (meaning put more pressure on them and keep a closer eye on them to make sure they know how to vote next time). It doesn't mean these 9 are opposed to the true conservatives in any substaintial way. It just means they are the uninformed that simply must be educated more (or at least controlled better).
You can be sure McConnel is gonna be trying to cement his influence with them over the coming weeks. So Cruz better get to them first.
Michael D. Crapo of Idaho,
Ted Cruz of Texas,
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
David Vitter of Louisiana.
No money should be donated to ANYONE else. These are the men, patriots to the constitution, who hold the salvation of the Republic in their hands.
Remember them well in the days to come.
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.