“...you’re looking for the Republican candidate who is the most steadfastly opposed to liberalism, whose agenda is oriented toward stopping it and thwarting it and defeating it, it is Ted Cruz.”
Puzzling thing for Rush to say, after telling us yesterday that the passage of the Corker bill’s was strictly about money. Cruz voted for the Corker bill (along with every Republican save one), but now attacks it viciously. It is amazing. He claims it is setting the stage for a catastrophe. No one will remind him that he voted for it, so I suppose he forgot how he voted.
I was just listening to Mark Levin; he mentioned how the Constitution was turned upside down by the Corker bill, the bill that made it all happen for Obama and Iran.
Cruz is supposed to be Mr. Constitution. I would prefer some Cruz supporter to post and explain to the world why Cruz voted for the Corker bill. Telling me that I am a horrible person for mentioning Cruz’s vote is not an explanation.
Well, I'm a Cruz $$upporter, and I cannot explain why he supported the Corker bill. Indeed, it irks me that he did.
I'd speculate that if the outsider candidates ahead of Cruz in the polls were Sinators, they would have voted at that time with the 97 as well.
I explained Cruz’s vote to you, and others, several times.
Cruz first tried to amend it to give it some actual substance to the agreement, but was rebuffed by McConnell. He then voted against it (cloture), but the agreement carried overwhelmingly.
He then voted for the agreement, in order to enforce it against Obama. He knew Obama would renege on the agreement, and when Obama did renege, Cruz sought to enforce it. Obama was, and is, in violation of the agreement and federal law.
Cruz was given lemons by the GOP-e, and made lemonade. Now, he has Obama dead to rights. You can’t blame Ted Cruz if McConnell and the GOP-e refuse to enforce the law.
If Cruz got Rush Limbaugh to say something complimentary about him, that is quite a feat, since Rush has mentioned his name hardly at all, much to my disappointment. So you might say he picked up an important follower there.
The fact that he mentioned him in a way that really helps him...calling him such a dedicated conservative...is icing on the cake.
I am going to attempt something here, even though I don’t think it will work:
The Constitution has not changed at all regarding “Treaties.” What is necessary to pass them has not changed. What has changed, to the disgrace of congress for some time, is they allowed treaties to be called something else...agreements, deals, understandings, etc.
I understand there have been such euphemistically named bills on 123 occasions. Until we face the semantics on this, we can not solve the problem. As John Kerry stated
“It’s impossible to pass a treaty.” Ergo, let’s change the name of the bill. That is, in my opinion, the disgrace.
If I am wrong, it is not beneath me to apologize.
I’m fairly certain I’ve explained this to you before.