People seem to forget that Cruz ran a Roddy Piper senate campaign He said he wasn't going to DC to make friends and he was all out of bubble gum. If his colleagues liked him, that would be a bad sign. He campaigned promising to break furniture. The entire premise of his campaign is that DC elites don't like him, or you.
It is a premise and a campaign that appears to be resonating quite broadly with a lot of other people.
Yes, clearly, and I am the only one. You have to acknowledge Cruz is not likable. And not just from a political or partisan point of view. But even if you focus on politics, his personal and collaboration attributes would seem limit his success leading our country. Can you point to any examples of how he worked with people successfully to pass a bill of any importance?
Which may work representing a conservative area of a conservative state. But he is now looking to become the President of United States, and as such is asking for support from all Americans. He will be representing the best interest of ALL Americans. Including you, including me.
Can you point out to me examples of how Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton worked with people successfully to pass a bill of any importance? I'll wait.
You're kidding right? Cruz's entire claim to fame is that he is the "lone holdout" against the deals made between Obama and Republicans.
He didn't have to be the "lone holdout". There are quite a few other Republican Senators who made similar promises to their constituents. If they had stood up for the issues and positions that they had promised their constituents they would, then Cruz would not have been alone at all. In fact, it is not Cruz's fault he was standing alone. It was the fault of these other mostly Republican Senators. But it did take real guts and real character by Ted Cruz for him to be willing to stand alone and do what he had pledged to do, even when so many others were not only turning their coats on these issues, but pushing Cruz almost violently to do the same.
BWAAAAAHAHAHA. Obvious troll post from you. A party line vote that was jammed through such that "you have to pass the bill before you can find out what's in it!" (Pelosi) I seriously cannot believe you raised that up as an example. Truly makes you look ignorant.
Neither one of them were in the Senate when that was passed. Also, we all know that President Obama led that from behind, as usual. It was all about negotiations and graft to Democrats in Congress in order to figure out what could pass and how much it would cost. Also, nobody had read the damn thing anyway, so even for those that voted for it, they had to wait until afterwards to discover what was actually in it.
Here, read up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton And in response to the criticism she only authored three senate bills: http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/jun/23/jeb-bush/did-hillary-clinton-have-her-name-only-three-laws-/ Note Clinton was very respected by colleagues on both side of the aisle. I think she will be very willing to work with GOP as President... a point some Republicans have also made.
Obviously reading is not one of your strengths. Also obvious you can't answer the original question I posed to you.
Ah yes, the great bipartisan effort where the fringe left managed to bribe enough of the middle left to get an awful bill passed that was originally unconstitutional but was eventually turned into nothing but a giant tax hike in order to skirt by SCOTUS. Truly a stellar example.
A perfect example of a hilarious post, but it's even more funny because I think Gladiato was being serious. Unintended humor is always the funniest. Poor Gladiato.
That's fine. You can't have it both ways though. Cruz can't get credit for standing on his principals when the the rest of the GOP was making deals with Obama while you bash Obama for not working with the GOP. Both can't be true. Literally.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:15:./temp/~bdaLye:: A bill to deny admission to the United States to any representative to the United Nations who has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities or a terrorist activity against the United States and poses a threat to United States national security interests. http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=sponsored_legislation 97 amendments, bills, and other resolutions that back up his stance on the issues about what he would do for his voters in Texas. Also he worked to lift the FAA flight ban into Israel.
Yea, so many are doing that today. Break! Break! Break! Breaking is pretty easy. Fixing is hard. And fixing by yourself in a democracy is pretty much impossible.
I think where they are coming from is that there is a time for capitulation and there is a time to hold out for a better compromise....or an actual compromise. The debt limit is usually what is cited, that was used in an effort to force the president to come to the negotiation table since they couldn't get him to do so by other means and they just gave up on it without actually getting anything that would help the country. The main reason for this is that big spending Republicans sided with big spending Democrats.....which is something that will always happen because they are essentially the same thing. They should have made a stand and forced the president into a more fiscally responsible budget....but they didn't have the stones for it.
Cruz keeps hammering a wedge between Americans to get votes. New York City republicans aren't real republicans. Same for New Hampshire republicans now. Republicans who haven't voted yet, take note: if you live in California or the Pacific Northwest, in New England, and probably the mid-Atlantic, he doesn't think you're a real republican either. Senate record comparisons are a bit disingenuous here because generally first-term senators don't do much. Obama, Cruz, and Rubio all only have first-term experience, and Clinton not much more. They aren't going to have bills named after them or something. Of all the first-termers, Cruz made the biggest splash. But the question was about working well with others. According to congress.gov: Cruz: * Sponsored 1 bill that became law, which was a law barring entry into the US to UN reps who sponsored terrorism against the US. The law had 6 cosponsors, all Republican. * Cosponsored 4 bills that became law, partnering with Republican Blunt ( Near East and South Central Asia Religious Freedom Act of 2014),and Democrats Boxer (United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014), Feinstein (Adoptive Family Relief Act), and Booker (Emergency Information Improvement Act of 2015). Obama: * Sponsored 2 bills that became law: the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 (with 4 D cosponsors and 1 R cosponsor), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006 (with 8 D cosponsors and 4 R cosponsors). * Cosponsored 29 bills, too numerous to list. By a quick count, at least 11 of these bills listed a Republican as the primary sponsor. Clinton: * Sponsored 3 bills that became law: the Kate Mullany National Historic Site Act, which had 1 co-sponsor, Democrat Chuck Schumer, and 2 bills renaming things (lol). * Cosponsored 74 bills that became law. 26+ of those list a Republican as the primary sponsor. Clinton had more time, but even on a per annum basis she's had a better run rate than Cruz. And Obama produced more than Cruz on the same amount of time. Of course, there's still wiggle room to say the bills they've sponsored aren't 'important' enough. But, big or small, Obama and Clinton have a quantifiable lead in getting bills into law, and in working with the opposition party to do so. And none of it is very surprising because Clinton and Obama were trying to do their jobs when they were in the Senate while Cruz has just been leading the Say No! brigade. He can't even work together with other Republicans to just say no. They said no to his saying no. He's an authoritarian, not a consensus builder.
