So we have a Republican Convention with tens of millions of people watching, and Ted’s best effort was to tell folks to vote their conscience without mentioning Trump by name.
Then he says he will vote for Trump and sits on the phones for about an hour.
Then four days before the election he appeared at three campaign sites, refusing to mention Trump by name at one of them.
All in all he probably gave two 10-20 minute talks at the other two, actually mentioning Trump by name.
So all in all, from the Convention to election day, Ted spent less than two hours trying to keep Hillary from being elected.
As for his “always Conservative” actions,... no sale.
In 1999 he was an advisor to GW. His advice on illegal immigrants was to reinforce his view that there was no general public urge to take action. (Leftist lie)
Then dear old Ted decided to take a tour urging folks not to vote for the Corker Bill. He did this for several months. Then he himself voted for it.
He came up with the idea of granting all illegal aliens amnesty. Along with that he testified that he wanted to raise the H1-B visa limit to 500% of it’s then present level.
When challenged on these issues, he said he only did it to provide a poison pill so a bill wouldn’t pass.
Several years later, Ted had to scrub the H1-B increase idea off his web site. Strangely, he had kept that aspect of the poison pill on his web site. He got caught with it there, and had to expunge it quickly.
He went to the border with Glenn Beck and handed out Teddy Bears to the children of illegal aliens there. What Conservative would do that? Would you? I certainly wouldn’t.
He told us he wouldn’t vote for the TPP bill. He then proceeded to vote for the TPA bill, which had to pass so the TPP would remain viable.
Ted played the margins all along. I know he has a lot of folks thinking he’s rock solid. I’m not one of them.
It’s election season again, and Ted is in the media telling us what a stalwart guy he is. He always does this before elections, and then he goes back to being on the margins again.
John McCain had that down pat.
RE: So we have a Republican Convention with tens of millions of people watching, and Ted’s best effort was to tell folks to vote their conscience without mentioning Trump by name.
Then he says he will vote for Trump and sits on the phones for about an hour.
Then four days before the election he appeared at three campaign sites, refusing to mention Trump by name at one of them.
____________________________________
I don’t blame him for that.
Trump was an unknown quantity. What we have is a man who speaks on both sides of his mouth, in the past supporting unconservative things like using eminent domain to seize the property of private citizens in favor of big businesses ( see Connecticut’s Kelo vs City of New London ).
Here was Trump who used his name for a a Trump University that did not produce what was promised and when sued, finally had to settle for $25 Million.
Here was the Trump who without citing any good evidence, uses his underlings ( and he parrots them ) to accuse Ted Cruz’s father of being part of the conspiracy to assassinate JFK ( how would you feel if I did it to your father ?).
That Ted Cruz was kind enough to tell people to vote their conscience because Trump was an unknown quantity, and then AFTER Trump proves his conservative bonafide by really enacting conservative things, he then supports him, just shows that Ted Cruz is not a man who simply gives his support to anyone who talks a good game.
Show me your character by your deeds and I will support you. And when Trump did, Ted Cruz supported him.
What’s wrong with that?
On Immigration, you can read Ted Cruz’s stance here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Ted_Cruz_Immigration.htm
He was and still is for building a border wall. Ted Cruz proposed using assets seized from El Chapo to fund the border wall.
And when push came to shove, Ted Cruz actually took Trump to task for suggesting giving young undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship, a day after President Donald Trump said he was open to the idea as part of immigration legislation being negotiated in Congress.
See here:
Regarding his providing a poison pill so a bill wouldn’t pass, hey what about Trump? He proposed a path to citizenship for 1.8 Million illegals. FReepers calls this a bluff ( AKA a poison pill by another name ). Well, where’s the consistency? Is Trump serious about it or is he not?
Firstly, whether Cruz’s amendment to the gang of 8’s immigration proposal was indeed a “poison pill” meant to kill the immigration bill, which the Texas senator’s campaign now contends. That is unequivocally true, so point goes to Cruz.
The bipartisan group of eight senators — including battle-tested veterans and relative newcomers like Rubio — painstakingly negotiated a delicate compromise in early 2013 that would overhaul every corner of the U.S. immigration system, including a 13-year pathway to citizenship for millions here illegally.
Cruz’s amendment — which called for stripping out a pathway to citizenship, but keeping a path for legalization — would have done precisely that.
The night before each Senate Judiciary Committee markup, senior Gang of Eight aides would huddle to scour through each of the amendments that were teed up for the following day, determining which proposals would be palatable and which would be unacceptable. This strategy was meant to ensure the core elements of the Gang of Eight deal would stay intact (the four members of the Gang who sat on the Judiciary Committee would vote in a bloc, usually with the rest of the committee Democrats, to vote down potential deal-killers).
“This one was one that clearly we all had to oppose because it went to the core of the deal,” recalled an aide to a Senate Democrat during the 2013 negotiations. “It could’ve unraveled the whole deal.”
Sure, Cruz himself never called it a “poison pill” at the time. But no senator refers to his own proposal as a poison pill, even if it plainly is. The Gang of Eight never considered Cruz as “gettable,” and it was well-known at the time that Cruz was never going to vote for the bill and was in fact, trying to kill it.
And need I remind you of Cruz’s practically lone crusade to stop Obamacare from becoming law ( causing a government shutdown in the process and earning him the ire of both Democrats and members of his own party, yes, John McCain included ).
So, your point on Ted Cruz not being tough on immigration and not being conservative and his only talking conservative because it is election season does not convince.
To compare him to John McCain who has shown his true colors in his last years in the Senate is totally inaccurate.