Ted Cruz launches faux filibuster as Senate readies spending bill vote

vesper said:

I know what your problem is.....a junior senator shed light on the failures of the Republican establishment to stand up against Obamacare. And just like the senators took it personal, so do you. And just like the senators used tactics such as using their staffers to trash Cruz or have their heavy lifters like Rove do it for them in a PERSONAL way, you too make it personal instead of looking at the failures within the party such as this appeasement mentality that results in one failed election after another. Like several Republicans in the Senate have forgotten they work for their constituents and find it annoying if they remind them of that, you too find it annoying. Most moderates do.

Click to expand...

Please explain to be how reading a childrens book on the Senate floor is standing up against Obamacare. His voting record seems to be very narrow, and there are very few things this guy actually likes. He voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act, against aid to those affected by Hurricane Sandy, and against the Student Loan and Affordability Act. Sounds like a great guy! Nothing like only rich people being able to go to college, forgetting the victims of a natural disaster, and voting against protecting women! He is standing up for America! We need an America that has their women back in the kitchen, let's people suffer when it isnt their fault, and where only wealthy families can afford college!

vesper said:

After hours on the floor, Ted Cruz read Green Eggs and Ham as a bedtime story to his girls who had been watching their daddy, yesterday on C-SPAN from Texas.

Thanks for the stellar example of how men can be just as catty as women.

Click to expand...

"Good night, Moon" would have been better.

iacardsfan said:

His own party voted to end his filibuster.

Click to expand...

There was no filibuster just an awareness generated of how bad this bill is and how it is going to hurt the American people. Please explain to me why anyone would support a bill that exempts so many including the people who created it?

Conservative said:

What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty? You obviously have never researched the Reagan record and buy what the left tells you. Why? You seem to be emotionally invested in liberalism and I don't understand it. When proven wrong, accept it, apologize, and move on. One of these days that light bulb is going to go off in that head of yours and hopefully the liberal elites haven't destroyed you completely before it does.

Click to expand...

I have you haven't you still reuse to back up your claims yet you expect everyone else to this is a debate, talking to you is like beating my head against the wall while arguing with a child! Typical Republican.

iacardsfan said:

Please explain to be how reading a childrens book on the Senate floor is standing up against Obamacare. His voting record seems to be very narrow, and there are very few things this guy actually likes. He voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act, against aid to those affected by Hurricane Sandy, and against the Student Loan and Affordability Act. Sounds like a great guy! Nothing like only rich people being able to go to college, forgetting the victims of a natural disaster, and voting against protecting women! He is standing up for America! We need an America that has their women back in the kitchen, let's people suffer when it isnt their fault, and where only wealthy families can afford college!

Click to expand...

1. I don't know of any Republican that voted for extending the "Violence against Women Act". First off the law makes domestic violence a federal crime. That is unconstitutional. All states already have laws on the books to prosecute such crime and there is no mention in the Constitution that gives the feds such authority. 2. The wording in the bill has led to a more broader definition of domestic violence to include a man that raises his voice at his partner, calls her an offensive name, stalks her, causes her any emotional distress, or simply just annoys her can potentially be prosecuted under the VAWA. 3. This bill according to the CBO costs American taxpayers $660 million dollars a year to duplicate what is already covered in states laws in accordance with the 10th Amendment. 4. The real purpose of the VAWA is to shell out taxpayer dollars to liberal organizations that help elect Democrats which is why the reauthorization bill passed out of committee on a straight party-line vote. It's a scam but like so often one of the dishonest ways of politicians is to name a bill something in order to pressure their colleagues into voting for it. Supporters of the VAWA attempt to politically hurt those opposed to it by painting them as anti-woman or somehow in favor of violence against women just like you have done.

Now about the student loan vote you make claim to.... It was not all federal student loans but a vote on continuing rates that were slashed in half two years ago for Stafford loans only. The average interest rate for a federal student loan is 6.8% but Stafford loans have been enjoying a 3.4% rate. The problem with many not voting for the bill is because the left side of the aisle wanted to extend the rate for a year without delving into the deeper issue of changing the way the government sets all of its student loan rates not just those for the subsidized Stafford loan. It needs to be reformed.

All the things you mentioned are bad laws, whether they be unconstitutional, need reform, waste taxpayers' money etc. that originated with Democrats. But never fear there are always a handful of yellow bellied sapsuckers on the right side of the aisle that will lend their votes to the Democrats so they can reach Cloture and continue in the fecklessness.

solletica said:

O-care doesn't provide universal coverage. It only provides a universal requirement to pay insurance co. premiums.

Click to expand...

that hardly seems fair. We all have to pay premiums, but don't get medical insurance?

Back on topic- it appears fearless Ted stood for his principles until it was time to vote and then he went with the pack and voted FOR the bill. Sen McCain took Cruz to task over the Nazi comparison.

The CON nuts are falling from the trees. eace

notquiteright said:

Back on topic- it appears fearless Ted stood for his principles until it was time to vote and then he went with the pack and voted FOR the bill. Sen McCain took Cruz to task over the Nazi comparison.

The CON nuts are falling from the trees. eace

Click to expand...

Oh, you mean pulled it out of context siding with his pals Reid and Schumer to attack? Yes he did.

notquiteright said:

Back on topic- it appears fearless Ted stood for his principles until it was time to vote and then he went with the pack and voted FOR the bill. Sen McCain took Cruz to task over the Nazi comparison.

The CON nuts are falling from the trees. eace

Click to expand...

His constituency will still remember the filibuster more clearly than the vote. His goal of gaining support from the right wingers was reached without his supporting a government shut down. It was a political win - win.

Dittohead not! said:

His constituency will still remember the filibuster more clearly than the vote. His goal of gaining support from the right wingers was reached without his supporting a government shut down. It was a political win - win.

Click to expand...

ORRRRR the radical right sees him as a cut and run wimp. One senator voting NO would not have shut the government down, and the TP CON game claims it isn't to 'shut the government down' but instead to 'defund that bad ol' Obamacare' :roll:

I seriously doubt any of his opponents in the next primary will let the vote be forgotten. He could have been the lone beacon of CON principles, instead he is just another posturing pimpin' politician.

It appears the TPs in the House are mad at Cruz for not seeing this through, the House is the cesspool of dysfunctional Right Wing politics, if they don't forget you can bet the koolaid drinking won't either.

Senator Cruz runs the risk of being seen, as they say in Texas- All hat and no cattle... :2wave:

Oh forgot to ask- do you think he will run in 2016?

greengirl77 said:

I have you haven't you still reuse to back up your claims yet you expect everyone else to this is a debate, talking to you is like beating my head against the wall while arguing with a child! Typical Republican.

Click to expand...

I have backed up my claims by posting actual data from bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury. Since obviously those sites aren't credible for you tell me the sites that are? Maybe it is data that you are having a problem understanding? I can beat you up all day with data the refutes your "feelings." Now tell us all credible sites in your world since bea.gov, bls.gov, and the Treasury aren't. Seems they were credible during the Clinton years, but not so now. Wonder why?

notquiteright said:

ORRRRR the radical right sees him as a cut and run wimp. One senator voting NO would not have shut the government down, and the TP CON game claims it isn't to 'shut the government down' but instead to 'defund that bad ol' Obamacare' :roll:

I seriously doubt any of his opponents in the next primary will let the vote be forgotten. He could have been the lone beacon of CON principles, instead he is just another posturing pimpin' politician.

It appears the TPs in the House are mad at Cruz for not seeing this through, the House is the cesspool of dysfunctional Right Wing politics, if they don't forget you can bet the koolaid drinking won't either.

Senator Cruz runs the risk of being seen, as they say in Texas- All hat and no cattle... :2wave:

Oh forgot to ask- do you think he will run in 2016?

Click to expand...

If he thinks there is a chance, he'll run in 2016. Whether he will get the nomination, of course, depends on a lot of things that are outside of his control.

They said Bush was "all hat and no cattle", yet he won not only the nomination, but the election, twice.

and, according to his spinmeisters, he won't have voted to keep Obamacare, but to save the country from a government shutdown.

as for being a "posturing pimpin' politician", is there another kind?

shrubnose said:

That's what you think, but that doesn't mean that it's going to happen. Wait and see, the extreme right is not going to take over the USA. Obamacare is settled law, it's not going away. The GOP will just have to deal with it as reality whether they like it or not.

Click to expand...

That's funny, following the Constitution is now "extreme right". It used to not be right or left, it was just a given that we follow the Constitution. Now, it's "extreme" behavior.

greengirl77 said:

I have you haven't you still reuse to back up your claims yet you expect everyone else to this is a debate, talking to you is like beating my head against the wall while arguing with a child! Typical Republican.

Click to expand...

How about it, green, name for me the sites you find credible since bea.gov, bls.gov, and the Treasury don't qualify in your world. Still waiting and bet I have a much longer wait. I really do know why you are beating your head against the wall because you simply cannot believe that those liberals you support would be lying to you. Most people who think only with their heart love the rhetoric while ignoring the results. You seem to believe rhetoric trumps results so I won't be holding my breath waiting for a response from you giving me credible sites.

LOL....what does Ted Cruz offer up as an alternative to Obamacare? Ashton Kutcher and Green eggs and ham. The guy is a disgrace.

Dittohead not! said:

His constituency will still remember the filibuster more clearly than the vote. His goal of gaining support from the right wingers was reached without his supporting a government shut down. It was a political win - win.

Click to expand...

Cruz already had the support of the right-wingers. His political stunt came across as silly, a complete waste of time and little more than political grandstanding/gamesmanship. When will right-wing Republicans realize that cowtowing to the wacko fringe of the party results in little political clout for them in the big picture.

disneydude said:

Cruz already had the support of the right-wingers. His political stunt came across as silly, a complete waste of time and little more than political grandstanding/gamesmanship. When will right-wing Republicans realize that cowtowing to the wacko fringe of the party results in little political clout for them in the big picture.

Click to expand...

Its a double edge sword here. It might help him get through the primaries, but if he makes it to the big race this will only hurt him, the conservative base isn't enough to win the presidency. Sorry Ted!

shagg said:

Its a double edge sword here. It might help him get through the primaries, but if he makes it to the big race this will only hurt him, the conservative base isn't enough to win the presidency. Sorry Ted!

Click to expand...

Thats what did Romney in. He gave up his principles and cowtowed to the right wing wackos to try to appease them to give him the nomination.....it screwed him in the GE.

disneydude said:

Thats what did Romney in. He gave up his principles and cowtowed to the right wing wackos to try to appease them to give him the nomination.....it screwed him in the GE.

Click to expand...

The conservatives didn't believe he was conservative.

American said:

The conservatives didn't believe he was conservative.

Click to expand...

That too. Nobody knew who he was anymore. Same thing that happened to McCain in '08.

Dittohead not! said:

If he thinks there is a chance, he'll run in 2016. Whether he will get the nomination, of course, depends on a lot of things that are outside of his control. They said Bush was "all hat and no cattle", yet he won not only the nomination, but the election, twice. and, according to his spinmeisters, he won't have voted to keep Obamacare, but to save the country from a government shutdown. as for being a "posturing pimpin' politician", is there another kind?

Click to expand...

BushII had a huge advantage over most other no cattle guys, he had a famous family with strong political connections. he won the election once and was awarded the election once, and without the award election there would have been no second election. He also didn't have to face a strong and self destructive Tea Party, but still have the last grand stand of the lockstep CON.

Course BushII didn't make a pompass political stance only to retreat from it with a dozen pretenders to the throne watching.

Funny thing about spinmeisters- they serve all sides of an issue, so it is foolish to claim only one bunch of spinners will be heard. Cut and Run is a most favored attack point by the radical right. I believe it will be used and it will be effective.

Have to love the last line, first a noble man taking a noble stance- then is there any other kind of politician but the posturing, pimpin', puke....

disneydude said:

Cruz already had the support of the right-wingers. His political stunt came across as silly, a complete waste of time and little more than political grandstanding/gamesmanship. When will right-wing Republicans realize that cowtowing to the wacko fringe of the party results in little political clout for them in the big picture.

Click to expand...

It's hilarious when liberals try to tell conservatives what other conservatives are thinking about this or that. It always turns out like a blonde joke. :mrgreen:

American said:

The conservatives didn't believe he was conservative.

Click to expand...

More likely the TP's didn't think he was their brand of ultra-CON. Which he wasn't but even in the General Election he couldn't run completely away from the Radical right wingnuts.

He is a CON, just not a Radical one.... eace

Dittohead not! said:

that hardly seems fair. We all have to pay premiums, but don't get medical insurance?

Click to expand...

Yes, an insurance co's dream come true, which explains why all the major insurers love O-Care.

They know that it forces everyone to buy their policies, but at the same time, doesn't really mean they have to cover anything since they can always do what they're currently doing: deceive policyholders on large claims by saying that something isn't covered even if it is (a typical practice enabled by the fact that most policyholders don't have the $$ to take the insurers to court), or lobby the govt. to reduce its benefit obligations to make it practically worthless for policyholders in the case of large claims (i. e. surgeries, chronic illnesses, etc.).

In other words, O-care fixes nothing. It simply keeps in place the fundamental problem--the health insurance oligopoly.

The "logic" of O-care rests on the assumption that the govt. will regulate insurers on patients' behalf, but as everyone knows, a govt. compromised by lobbying cannot be an effective regulator.

American said:

The conservatives didn't believe he was conservative.

Click to expand...

Exactly my point. If he would have stuck to his principles and not tried to be all things to all people he might have won. Instead....he sold his soul to the right-wing fringe of the party.