[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

Marcella, thank you for the very clear, succinct, concise explanation! ;-)

That changes the whole ball game and what I was thinking about Ted Cruz after admiring him so much. You have restored my admiration of him.

[HiTech RedNeck]

SUPPOSEDLY the Constitution gives the Senate the right to nix it just by not giving it the nod.

But our slavery is such that we are unlikely to rise up and complain about such a Constitutional breach. So the next best thing is to engineer a way to keep it in the public eye between its winks of sleep.

[Marcella]

When someone writes an article, the way to get attention to it is to use a headline that will stun the possible reader so the reader will definitely read it.

Bad news gets read when good news doesn't. If something is good, there is usually no news cover of it. Think about your local channel and their news hour. The first item they report is bad news so you will keep watching - it will be a killing or some official accused of wrongdoing, or Christians being beheaded, anything that is bad news.

The writer of this article used “supposed” bad news to get readers:
“Rubio, Paul, Cruz vote to allow Obama to lift Iran sanctions”. He didn't give us the background/explanation as to what actually happened, WHY they voted that way, as that wouldn't have grabbed the reader to keep reading.

Example: “The sun is shining and it's a beautiful day.” The reader goes to something else to read. “The sun is shining but severe weather may happen next week.” The reader keeps reading.

Writers against Cruz are going to use every method known to mankind to get voters to change their mind about him so always distrust bad news about him - in that case, go to his website to read his actual stance on that subject and what he did and why he did it.