If you are a Ted Cruz supporter like me, you thought he won the debate. The same goes for Trump and Rubio supporters. To supporters of all others – Rots-a-Ruck.
This time around, it seems more people are talking about the Cruz v Rubio battles than anyone else, including the Trumpster, concentrating on their immigration back and forth.
Cruz said during the debate that he is against the amnesty Rubio was pushing for, and then added, "I have never supported legalization, and I do not intend to support legalization."
Many have jumped on this as some sort of "Gotcha" moment – like – now we have him – he's waffling! He refuses to commit to a definitive statement. Well, only a stupid person, a politician, or liar (usually redundant) would ever be that definitive. A smart person would never say never.
Yesterday, Glenn Beck used the analogy of a president saying he would NEVER raise taxes – ever. Well, that's a great sound bite, and it may garner a few votes, but what if we were to find ourselves in the next great war, without the additional funds needed, and taxes had to be raised, even temporarily, to pay for the war effort? There goes the President's grand definitive pledge. Does this now make the president a liar? Cruz is far too intelligent to make that type of mistake.
There are very few statements that can be said to be truly definitive. There is a God, I love my family, and we will all kick the bucket eventually. These are definitive statements.
Even the left-leaning Politifact is calling Rubio's attack on Cruz's immigration policy false, as they "noted before that Cruz was the only one among the GOP presidential field who never plainly supported something like a path to citizenship or another form of legal status."
At an event in Iowa Cruz said: "Let's demonstrate we can stop illegal immigration, we can protect our national security interests, we can protect our law enforcement interests. Then once that's done, we can have a conversation at that point about whatever people remain here illegally." Personally, knowing of Cruz's voting record and stance on illegals, conversation or no, I don't believe he would ever vote for legal status. His history, which is the only true measure on which to base future events, tells me he would fight against it.
As far as Rubio's claims that Ted is in favor of greatly expanding H1B visas, which pertains to legal immigration, he was in 2013, but witnessing the many abuses of the broken system has since changed his mind. That, to me, is a perfectly reasoned and reasonable position.
There are even claims from the both the left and the establishment that Cruz voted against funding our troops. So now Cruz hates the military and must not care about our troops. Yet even the leftist of the left, Yahoo News, dispels this nonsense.
During the debate, Rubio stated: "Three times, [Cruz] voted against the Defense Authorization Act, which is a bill that funds the troops. And I have to assume that if you vote against it in the Senate, you would also veto it as president."
So is Marco a liar or this ill-informed? As Yahoo notes, the NDAA does NOT fund the troops. It merely "approves programs and general initiatives for the military." Cruz has indeed voted against the NDAA because, as he said, "I told voters in Texas that I would oppose the federal government having the authority to detain U.S. citizens permanently with no due process."
But this is the way things work in Washington. They present a huge bill that leave members constrained to voting up or down in its entirety. Just like Speaker Ryan's new 2009 page Omnibus / Porkulous spending bill.
The Hill reported: "Leaders on Capitol Hill late Tuesday announced they have reached a sweeping year-end deal on taxes and funding the government after days of intense negotiations." A vote on the bill was to take place today, but is pushed until tomorrow. What a crock! Intense negotiations my butt!
Politicians don't craft these bills. Armies of unelected bureaucrats write these 2000+ page bills on behalf of the weasel politicians, and the politicians are then given bullet points to make it appear that they know what the bill contains. Then they rush it out for a vote mere days later.
I'm reminded of what that leftist hack, Rep. John Conyers, snarkily said in 2009: "I love these members, they get up and say, 'Read the bill. What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"
This is the reason Ted Cruz votes no on most of these bills – not because he hates the troops. His compatriot and fellow Constitutionalist Mike Lee put it best as he plainly stated that if he doesn't know what's in the bill, he votes no – every time.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.