Posted on 05/07/2015 3:55:30 PM PDT by gwgn02
Cruz- “This bill was a missed opportunity. If Congress had acted to defend our constitutional authority – if Congress had adopted the Cruz-Toomey amendment – then we would be able to stop a bad Iran deal. Instead, the odds are now overwhelming that under these ground rules President Obama will negotiate, and Congress will acquiesce to, a terrible deal that allows Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and will endanger the lives of millions of Americans and our allies.
“I voted no on cloture because we should have insisted on amendments to put real teeth in this bill. Ultimately, I voted yes on final passage because it may delay, slightly, President Obama’s ability to lift the Iran sanctions and it ensures we will have a Congressional debate on the merits of the Iran deal. I will continue to lead the fight to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to protect the national security of America and our allies.”
Read more: http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-why-i-voted-yes-for-corker-iran-bill/#ixzz3ZUpvksA2
Every senator can participate in the senate debate on review, until it is cut off. Cotton gets as much participation as Cruz.
If you are trying to claim that Cruz will somehow get a seat at the small table because of his yes vote, that is absurd. He’s one of 99 yes votes. There is no reason to think anybody is going to listen to him any more because he voted yes than they would have if he had voted no.
Cloture was not important, because it passed. The cloture vote would only have been important if Cruz had been the deciding vote to stop cloture.
THIS was the vote that signals whether the bill is better than no bill . Cruz says yes.
You could say Cruz just voted for the “lesser of two evils”. The bill is evil, but he thinks not having the bill would be even more evil. Except the bill would pass without his vote, and now he is on record as APPROVING of a process where Obama gets whatever he wants, and you need 67 votes to stop him.
Can you imagine George Bush EVER getting that kind of deal from the democrats?
It’s depressing. I listen to Mark Levin as well. I’d rather be blissfully ignorant sometimes, I think. Bob
> “Every senator can participate in the senate debate on review, until it is cut off. Cotton gets as much participation as Cruz.”
Not true, for reasons explained below.
> “If you are trying to claim that Cruz will somehow get a seat at the small table because of his yes vote, that is absurd.”
Access to the Iran Deal document is restricted. It is being held secret and is viewable only in a security room where the review is monitored and is allows viewing only to Senators participating in the review. The Bill explicitly called for Senators to vote on whether they should be allowed to review the Iran Deal. Those that voted YES get to review, those that voted NO are not allowed review, because the document is kept secret. Those that review the deal are not allowed to reveal details of the deal. Those are terms that Obama set and were agreed to by McConnell.
> “He’s one of 99 yes votes.”
There were 98 yes votes. Boxer abstained.
> “There is no reason to think anybody is going to listen to him any more because he voted yes than they would have if he had voted no.”
No one outside Obama’s approved list has seen the Iran deal. Information is known only through leaks from the Iranian side, from Iranian press, from Mossad, from informants. Netanyahu knows what’s in the deal and I am sure he has briefed Ted Cruz.
On the campaign trail, Ted Cruz will be able to say he has seen the actual deal. That’s a lot more powerful than saying he has been briefed on the deal by third parties.
> “Cloture was not important, because it passed. The cloture vote would only have been important if Cruz had been the deciding vote to stop cloture.”
Cloture is always important. A vote against cloture of McConnell’s version of the Bill states that the bill should not be voted on. By voting NO on cloture Ted Cruz shows that the McConnell-Corker version to be a bad bill. Once cloture was passed, McConnell’s version of the bill was a done deal. Then Ted Cruz voted YES on the Bill so that he would be able to view the deal and also to delay the completion of the review; he said so in his press release. Delaying completion of the review keeps Obama from moving forward with his deal. Therefore, Ted Cruz is still working to kill the Iran Deal.
The House can still insert Ted Cruz’ amendment and Ted Cruz’ staff are working to get that done. If they are successful, the it will be Cruz’ version against McConnell’s version in the reconciliation process.
It actually is more demonstrative of group think personalities than the candidate
It helps me understand the Reign of Terror....lol
> To all you Freepers that said we must vote for the candidate that’ll win.
> Republicans have the majority of both houses and they are capitulating more than ever with Obama.
> How’s that for a kick in the pants?
There’s a simple explanation for this: the Republican party agrees with everything they capitulate on.
When you take THAT as your guide to decypher what the party’s about, you see that there’s no real difference between (R) and (D).
— IOW, the “lesser of two evils” crowd was played.
Yeesh, that's not a good thing.
It actually is more demonstrative of group think personalities than the candidate
Oh, I quite agree.
Take Palin as an example, I don't have much against her but one thing I don't give her a pass on is defending McCain… and that alone makes me anti-Palin
(apparently) according to her cult of personality — while I'm sure I could have a civilized discussion about it w/ her, there's no such thing from Cult GroupThink.
Anyone that can look at the actual actions of a Mitch, a Jonbon, a Cochran etc and not know they are mewling liberals is simply too stupid to vote and should not.
These so called ‘Lesser evils” were no unknown commodity. Free Republic does not have a single member that can claim to be unaware of the ongoing liberalism of the GOP. There is no excuse. None.
It is one thing to vote for a newcommer who said all the right things and to the best of ones knowledge, is a conservative and then he turns. It is another entirely to keep empowering someone that has embedded enough knives in ones back to have you listed by science as a Human Porcupine.
People who do so are a danger to their country and may as well preregister as Democrats. Regardless of what else they do, they owe America an apology for the mess they helped to create.
>> The only other person that comes close to [Cruz] in sincerity and communication ability is Sarah Palin <<
I’m not so sure the Cruz would truly appreciate your “compliment.” If he gets anointed by conservatives as the second-coming of Sarah Palin, then I’d say his national career is in grave danger.
>> You could say Cruz just voted for the “lesser of two evils” <<
There you go again, trying to be logical. One look at your posting history, going back for years, shows that you have constantly committed the sin of logicality. Shame on you.
Bkmk
A bill cannot restrict senator access to a document based on the senator’s vote on the bill.
The cloture vote was meaningless. If you want to pretend it had some meaning, you are free to do so. But factually, and actually, it made no difference at all whether Cruz voted YES or NO. Cloture is NOT a vote on the actual bill, it is a vote about debate on the bill. If a senator votes YES on cloture and gives the supporters 60 votes, and then later votes NO in the bill when they can’t stop it, you can certainly argue that the “yes” cloture vote was the important vote, because a no vote would have stopped the bill.
But the other way around — meaningless. The bill was being voted on, and for all time, the Senate record will show that Cruz AGREED WITH the contents of the bill, signified by voting YES on the bill.
This is only a good thing if you actually want to argue that passing this bill was a BETTER CHOICE than not passing the bill.
But I think you’d lose that argument, because there is no value to the SHORT DELAY it will take for the Senate to fail to get 67 votes — they get one month.
And after that month, the actual bill as passed give the president APPROVAL of whatever he put in the treaty, where before the President would NOT HAVE APPROVAL.
So unless you think Obama is actually going to put something in the treaty that is so bad that 34 democrats will vote against it, there is no way this bill is better than not having a bill.
I’m not against Cruz. I’m FOR America. What I’m AGAINST is Iran getting nukes. Quit idol worshipping and try and keep up.
> “I’m not against Cruz. I’m FOR America. What I’m AGAINST is Iran getting nukes.”
You insinuate Cruz is not “FOR” America nor is “AGAINST” Iran getting nukes. That’s both laughable and moronic.
> “Quit idol worshipping and try and keep up.”
I don’t subscribe to political idolatry. I value political logic and tactics that directly support the Constitution or people that support the Constitution.
> “A bill cannot restrict senator access to a document based on the senator’s vote on the bill.”
You should tell that to Obama who controls access to the deal document. Obama wants to keep the deal secret without any oversight from Congress. He has trade limited access to the document in return for the Senate ceding its treaty authority.
Not every Senator will be seeing the document. It’s kept in a special room with security monitors. Those who are granted access to see it are sworn to not discuss its details. Obama controls which Senators get to see it.
There are no ‘rules’ with Obama other than those that he can twist to his advantage and laws do not stop him. They may delay him but they don’t stop him.
Bottom line is that your assertion is fantasy because McConnell will do nothing against Obama; he will not convict upon impeachment and he will not defund. Conviction upon impeachment is the only act that can cause Obama to stop.
On the other hand if the federal judiciary were to weigh in (which they won’t), they have the US Marshals to stop people carrying out Obama’s directives.
Obama will only respond to force; nothing else.
> “The cloture vote was meaningless.”
Rubbish.
> “If you want to pretend it had some meaning, you are free to do so.”
Oh how kind of you.
> “But factually, and actually, it made no difference at all whether Cruz voted YES or NO.”
Not true. It makes a difference to supporters of Cruz and to Cruz himself that he voted NO on cloture.
> “Cloture is NOT a vote on the actual bill, it is a vote about debate on the bill.”
I know that. Did I say otherwise?
> “If a senator votes YES on cloture and gives the supporters 60 votes, and then later votes NO in the bill when they can’t stop it, you can certainly argue that the “yes” cloture vote was the important vote, because a no vote would have stopped the bill.”
Irrelevant to the discussion here of Ted Cruz.
> “But the other way around — meaningless. The bill was being voted on, and for all time, the Senate record will show that Cruz AGREED WITH the contents of the bill, signified by voting YES on the bill.”
Not true. Senator Cruz’ comments on the floor of the Senate are also part of the record. He did not in anyway agree with the contents of the bill. He voted YES only as a tactical maneuver.
> “This is only a good thing if you actually want to argue that passing this bill was a BETTER CHOICE than not passing the bill.”
This is the only worthy thing you have brought up. Of course NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL but people confuse ‘BILL’ with ‘DEAL’. The ‘BILL’ is not the ‘DEAL’.
> “But I think you’d lose that argument, because there is no value to the SHORT DELAY it will take for the Senate to fail to get 67 votes — they get one month.”
Ted Cruz disagrees with your opinion.
> “And after that month, the actual bill as passed give the president APPROVAL of whatever he put in the treaty, where before the President would NOT HAVE APPROVAL.”
You are in error again. Obama is not presenting his deal as a treaty. It should be considered a treaty and that is the point of Ted Cruz’ amendment.
The core flaw in most every assertion you make is you would not know how to handle Obama’s lawlessness given McConnell will do nothing to stop him. You are relying on ‘laws and rules’ that ‘exist’ but are ‘not in effect’. In other words your personal reality is fantasy in the real world of these politics.
> “So unless you think Obama is actually going to put something in the treaty that is so bad that 34 democrats will vote against it, there is no way this bill is better than not having a bill.”
Again the word “treaty”. Ted Cruz’ amendment is crafted to make the BILL a de facto call for the Iran Deal to be presented as a treaty. Therefore, don’t blame Cruz, blame McConnell and Obama.
Ted Cruz’ amendment language can still be used by Conservative House Members in their version. So Ted Cruz still has a chance to remove any legitimacy from Obama’s Iran Deal by offering the services of his staff to members of the House which he does routinely.
Finally, note that Obama doesn’t give a damn about what Congress does. He said with or without Congress he would take his deal to the UN to have it ‘ratified’.
Any astute person would then ask why would Obama support McConnell’s version of the Bill for oversight? Because Obama’s advisors told Obama that the Bill effectively cedes treaty authority thereby lending some legitimacy to his deal.
You can thank me for the tutoring lesson.
Voting matters. Isn’t that what you all are always saying? Better to vote for the lesser of to evils and all that nonsense! He voted with McConnell on the second vote. I don’t give a damn how you twist yourself into a pretzel to justify it. All I said was Tom Cotton was the true hero in this vote. Does that mean I trust him not to screw up on the next important vote? Nope. Because I trust NO politician. You act like this is some appropriations bill. This is about Iran getting nukes. I consider this pretty freaking serious! I also consider Lynch ‘ s vote pretty serious as well. It’s not about whether or not his vote would have made a difference, obviously it wouldn’t have. It’s about principle. Which is clearly lacking in politicians and the majority of people in this country, which is why we are on a fast tract to hell.
That’s why I said we have to stop putting our faith in men. Get on our knees and start praying for forgiveness and mercy. Start praying for a backbone. Start praying for God to raise up men and women like our founding fathers who were willing to give up all they owned and including their own lives for freedom and what was right, whether it was popular or not.
Ted Cruz may very well be one of those men. Time will tell.
> “He voted with McConnell on the second vote”
Truly lacking in comprehension.
A fireman breaks into a house.
A burglar breaks into a house.
Both have entirely different motive and intent. Yet they are equivalent in your view because they both broke into a house.
I’m lacking in comprehension? Clearly you didn’t read or comprehend what i just said. Tow the Grand Ol’ Party line. I know your type. Can’t stand an independent thinker. Beat it. I’m done wasting my energy on you.
Sorry to say you’re nuts.
I wrote a clear example that a school child could understand to help others understand what you are trying to do.
Here it is again:
Fireman breaks into a house.
Burglar breaks into a house.
Both with entirely different motive and intent and yet they are equivalent in your view because they both broke into a house.
Name calling. I think you’re projecting with the “school child” comment.
Anyway, don’t you have other people you can annoy? I’m not arguing with you anymore and you’re not going to change my mind with name calling and badgering so give it a rest.
So sorry to hear someone peed in your cornflakes!
BA-BYE!
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.