Posted on 12/23/2015 8:03:10 PM PST by Isara
This morning the Politico came out swinging at Ted Cruz with the headline “What Ted Cruz said behind closed doors” as if to suggest it would be different from what he says publicly:
In June, Ted Cruz promised on NPR that opposition to gay marriage would be "front and center" in his 2016 campaign.
In July, he said the Supreme Court's decision allowing same-sex marriage was the "very definition of tyranny" and urged states to ignore the ruling.
But in December, behind closed doors at a big-dollar Manhattan fundraiser, the quickly ascending presidential candidate assured a Republican gay-rights supporter that a Cruz administration would not make fighting same-sex marriage a top priority.
In a recording provided to POLITICO, Cruz answers a flat "No" when asked whether fighting gay marriage is a "top-three priority," an answer that pleased his socially moderate hosts but could surprise some of his evangelical backers.
In fact it wasn’t a ‘flat no’ as Politico says if you listen to the audio:
Listen to the audio at the link.
Here’s the transcript for those of you on mobile devices:
Male questioner: "Can I ask you a question? So, I’m a big supporter. And the only issue I really disagree with you about is gay marriage. And I’m curious: Given all the problems that the country's facing - like ISIS, the growth of government - how big a priority is fighting gay marriage going to be to a Cruz administration?"
Cruz: "My view on gay marriage is that I’m a constitutionalist and marriage is a question for the states. And so I think if someone wants to change the marriage laws of their state, the way to do so is convince your fellow citizens - and change them democratically, rather than five unelected judges. … Being a constitutionalist is integral to my approach to every other issue. So that I'm very devoted to."
Same questioner: "So would you say it’s like a top-three priority for you - fighting gay marriage?"
Cruz: "No. I would say defending the Constitution is a top priority. And that cuts across the whole spectrum - whether it’s defending [the] First Amendment, defending religious liberty, stopping courts from making public policy issues that are left to the people. …
"I also think the 10th Amendment of the Constitution cuts across a whole lot of issues and can bring people together. People of New York may well resolve the marriage question differently than the people of Florida or Texas or Ohio. … That’s why we have 50 states - to allow a diversity of views. And so that is a core commitment."
But even more than it not being a ‘flat no’, Politico even makes a stunning admission that basically makes the point of this entire article moot:
“While Cruz's private comments to a more moderate GOP audience do not contradict what the Republican Texas senator has said elsewhere…”
Politico is basically trying to make an article out of what they are deeming as nuance, using that to suggest that Cruz is saying something a little different privately than he says to voters when that’s absolutely not the case.
Cruz responded today in a press conference where he said the secret tape contains nothing different than he’s said on TV over and over again and that he finds it amusing that advisors from other campaigns would seize on this to suggest it’s devastating for his campaign:
Ted Cruz Responds to Politico Secret Tape (Video)
Mike Huckabee is one of the ones jumping on this, saying in a statement:
"Conservatives are being asked to 'coalesce' around yet another corporately-funded candidate that says something very different at a big donor fundraiser in Manhattan than at a church in Marshalltown. Shouldn't a candidate be expected to have authenticity and consistency, instead of having to look at a map to decide what to believe and what to say?
"One reason I do respect Trump is that whether you agree with him or not, he doesn't pretend with his principles or change his message depending on his location or audience. If issues like marriage and the sanctity of life are truly issues of principle and not just politics, then there should not be geographical boundaries to what is right and wrong."
As Allahpundit points out at Hot Air, “On what planet is Donald Trump, former Democratic donor, a model of ideological principle and consistency? Because it's not this one.”
Bottom line is people are all hacked off right now. we just don’t wan’t a fool in there that lets us own
That is the dance
Own it
That is Obies game, He wishes to say some jive, skip down the road and be FARRR away with the loot before anything dawns on anyone.
Let’s not elect another PT Barnum
Dear Lord in Heaven hear my prayer
I love Ted but here is where he is wrong.
Marriage is a sacrament of the Church. not within the perview of the state or the Fed
Anyhow roll On Ted, Roll on
Feds can discuss civil marriage all day and all night but Marriage is a sacrament of the church.
You are one sick liar, I'll give you that. If you had any self respect you'd resign from Free Republic and sign on to DU, where you belong.
Cruz hasn’t suddenly decided to support gay marriage. This is a nothing issue, and if gay conservatives want to support him even though he supports man-woman marriage only, then all they better.
You paid establishment trolls are getting mighty desperate.
Here’s a clue: Goebbels was wrong. No matter how many times you repeat a lie it’s still a lie.
Because it is the FEDERAL judges that do the damage, and when they do damage the damage gets blasted all over the country.
He said nothing different than I have heard him say in interviews on TV.
I follow him closely and have for some time.
Completely agree. The state has no authority to define marriage. The states only authority of marriage comes as recognizing it as a legal contract.
Why do you say “or”?
Seriously what is the State our fed business in Marriage?
Its a sacred bond and it has meaning when you say those vows
Which church? How about the biggest church? Well, that would be the Catholic Church.
How’s that sound to you?
The Catholic Church’s laws bar divorce and remarriage. And bar contraception as well (even if that prohibition is honored more in the breach).
Are you okay with that? No?
You need to learn, sacramental marriage is different from civil marriage. Although the two overlap, in one case, one is governed by Church law, and in the other case, it SHOULD be governed by constitutionally LEGISLATED laws. And according to our FEDERAL constitution, that should happen at the state level.
I am saying they are two different animals Lets not mince words, that is what libtards do
I have to hit the pillows
Prayers for the Church and America
Illigitimi Non Corbundum
Dont let the bastards wear you down
Then why are you complaining about what Sen. Cruz is saying? Civil laws about legal marriage are rightly matters for state legislatures. Religious marriage is rightly governed by one’s religion. Sen. Cruz is 100% right on this.
It’s the internet and it’s late.
Am a Cruz backer
He aint skeered
Trump and Cruz are tougher than cobs.
the rest can eff off
Some never will.
Trump when it came down to defending the Constitution threw it under the bus in the Kim Davis case and with Pamela Geller’s case.
In fact Trump has been mighty silent on the issue of gay marriage and what he would about helping states not enforce it. So Trumpsters bashing Cruz might wannabe worried their guy is the one soft on this issue
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.