Facebook > Email > More Pinterest Print Twitter Play

Ted Cruz, Amnesty Enthusiast?

Marco Rubio confronts Ted Cruz with his own record.

By Comments

AP Photo | David J. Phillip

On Thursday, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz—the frontrunners for the Republican nomination among people who refuse to acknowledge the polls showing Donald Trump and Ben Carson as the clear leaders in the contest to be their party’s choice for leader of the free world—got into a fight.

Cruz started it during a talk radio interview after the host, Laura Ingraham, asked him about Rubio’s record on immigration reform. In 2013, as a member of the bipartisan “Gang of Eight,” Rubio worked to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill, which made it through the Senate only to be scuttled in the House. Lately, though, Rubio has recanted his support for the bill, saying that the people have spoken, he has taken their concerns to heart, and that the border must be secured before immigration reform can be revisited. Cruz, like many conservatives, isn’t buying it. “Talk is cheap,” he told Ingraham. Rubio’s actions, Cruz continued, told a different story: “The Gang of Eight—they fought tooth and nail to try to jam this amnesty down the American people’s throat.”

As is his habit, Cruz preserved a veneer of technically plausible deniability by saying “the Gang of Eight” rather than “the person most likely to single-handedly thwart my chances of winning the Republican presidential nomination, the intelligent yet affable Marco Rubio.” But it was a pointed criticism and his obvious target responded ruthlessly. Asked about Cruz’s comments later in the day, Rubio colored himself bemused: “If you look at it, I don’t think our positions are dramatically different.”

Given the political context, this claim seems brazenly provocative and prima facie implausible. Cruz has been campaigning as a conservative alternative to what he terms the corruption of the Washington establishment. His chances of winning the nomination are contingent on his ability to win over Republican voters currently supporting candidates such as Trump, who, during Tuesday’s debate, called for a revival of Operation Wetback. Rubio, meanwhile, is persona non grata among those voters, thanks in part to conservatives such as Cruz, who criticized the 2013 bill as an effort to provide “amnesty” to the eleven million unauthorized immigrants already in the United States.

And so many people, on both the right and the left, were startled when Rubio’s campaign operatives started to unload the evidence that Cruz, despite his stated opposition to “amnesty,” may be a longstanding supporter of “amnesty.” The most succinct indictment came from Cruz himself, courtesy of a 2013 video clip of remarks he offered in the Senate Judiciary Committee, directed specifically to all advocates who were, as he put it, “rightfully concerned” about how his proposed changes would affect the unauthorized immigrants themselves:

[T]hose 11 million under this current bill would still be eligible for RPI status. They would still be eligible for legal status and indeed, under the terms of the bill, they would be eligible for LPR status as well so that they are out of the shadows, which the proponents of this bill repeatedly point to as their principal objective to provide a legal status for those who are here illegally to be out of the shadows. This amendment would allow that to happen, but what it would do is remove the pathway to citizenship so that there are real consequences that respect the rule of law and that treat legal immigrants with the fairness and respect they deserve.

His goal, Cruz added, was not to kill the bill—”I want immigration reform to pass”—and to that end, he offered a prediction that quickly proved prescient: his changes, which would allow for legal status but not a pathway to citizenship, would help the bill’s chances of passage. The amnesty proposed by Rubio et al, by contrast, made it much more likely that the bill would be scuttled in the House.

The clip corroborates Rubio’s version of events: “Ted is a supporter of legalizing people that are in this country illegally. In fact, when the Senate bill was proposed, he proposed giving them work permits.” Since then, Cruz’s camp has pushed back, suggesting that in 2013, he was proposing a sort of thought experiment, designed to expose the “hypocrisy” of the Democrats. But that’s a convoluted and lawyerly line of argument, too clever by half, and potentially counterproductive.

There’s a better explanation: both Rubio and Cruz are correct. As Rubio says, they have publicly agreed on most major components of immigration reform. In my view, that is hardly shocking. Trumps and nativists notwithstanding, most level-headed people agree that mass deportation is impractical, and that for practical reasons, if nothing else, the government should extend some sort of legal status to the unauthorized immigrants who are already in the country.

But to Cruz’s point, the public record also shows one significant point of disagreement. Cruz has consistently pointed to the pathway to citizenship—not legal status in general, but citizenship specifically—as the reason he opposed the 2013 bill that Rubio supported; in his assessment, the pathway to citizenship would be “amnesty.” Rubio is defining amnesty more broadly, as any legalization of unauthorized immigrants already in the country. Under that definition, Cruz supported amnesty in 2013. Both interpretations are defensible because the term “amnesty” is not clearly defined.

Furthermore: there’s obviously a disconnect between what people have perceived Cruz’s position to be and what he actually said. But Rubio’s assessment was consistent with my impressions. Frankly, I thought it was common knowledge, and uncontroversial, that Cruz has opposed “amnesty” but supported some form of legalization. On Thursday evening, after Rubio kicked off all this ruckus, I looked up some things I’ve written in the past couple of years to see how I characterized them.

This is from April 2013, in a piece for Foreign Policy addressing Cruz’s apparent unpopularity with his colleagues in Congress:

Many observers were surprised when Cruz conspicuously declined to make common cause earlier this year with Sen. Marco Rubio on immigration reform. Cruz, like Rubio, is the son of an immigrant from Cuba, and Texas Republicans have, as a group, been more moderate on the issue than the national GOP. But unauthorized immigration is, of course, both an economic issue and a legal one. Someone like Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who signed Texas’s 2001 law that made certain undocumented students eligible for in-state tuition at the state’s public colleges and universities, is looking at it through the former lens. Cruz sees it as a rule-of-law issue, arguing that establishing a path to citizenship would be “profoundly unfair” to legal immigrants.

This is from November 2014, in a piece for Politico Magazine arguing that Cruz’s biggest weakness, as a presidential candidate, would be his inexperience, rather than his extremism, which I considered overblown:

He has never fully committed himself to the Tea Party’s more controversial causes. In 2013, for example, Cruz stared down Senator Marco Rubio’s efforts to gather bipartisan support for a comprehensive immigration reform bill, but not because he was against immigration reform itself; rather, his objections were specific to the proposal at hand.

That same month, November 2014, I wrote a piece here laying out the conservative objections to Obama’s executive action on DAPA:

In fact, Republicans can just as well argue that Obama was never seriously willing to work with them. The bill passed by the Senate, which was then controlled by Democrats, included a pathway to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants already in the country. That was a priority for the president, at the time; he had made it clear that the idea of passing comprehensive immigration reform without such a provision made no sense to him: “For comprehensive immigration reform to work, it must be clear from the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship.” What actually made no sense was the president’s insistence on this provision. Many Republicans were opposed to it—some out of knee-jerk nativism, perhaps, but others due to more substantive concerns over fairness, rule of law, and moral hazard. Many of these “amnesty” critics, including Ted Cruz, went on to say that they would support some kind of legal status for unauthorized immigrants already in the country.

And in March 2015, I wrote another piece for Politico Magazine, arguing that Cruz’s easily anticipated strategy for winning the nomination was risky, because he would have to walk a tricky tightrope to keep the Republican base from challenging his conservative credentials:

[A]ccusations of extremism don’t hold up; he decried Obama’s “executive amnesty” again today, for example, but he’s also on the record in favor of a pathway to legal status short of citizenship for unauthorized immigrants already in the country.

Cruz can’t fully fault his supporters for misunderstanding him. He himself has summarized Obama’s immigration programs as “executive amnesty.” More generally, it’s been obvious from the outset of Cruz’s campaign that his strategy of trying to out-conservative everyone else carries the risk that he’ll be taken to task when any such misunderstandings come to light. In this case, his task should be easy enough. He’s already made the case that the difference between a pathway to citizenship and a pathway to legal status is more than merely symbolic. He can, and should, make it again. I think it’s revisionist for Cruz’s supporters to argue that he didn’t really support any form of legal status in 2013, that it was all a ploy. It’s also an odd line of defense, because it’s tantamount to insisting that he was lying through his teeth in 2013. And ultimately, it seems counterproductive: if Cruz disavows his support for any form of legalization now, he’d be conceding Rubio’s point that the two are equivalent, and that either can be properly defined as amnesty.

Related Content

  • nickthap

    Cruz will say anything to appeal to the Republican base. The end.

    • fourpmfox

      Can’t wait for your opinion of Hill-ree!!!

    • fb274

      Rubio, is that you disguised as nickclap.

  • space2k

    Well gosh, I’m sure that his opponents will give Senator Cruz the benefit of the doubt and listen carefully to his explanation as he has done so many times.

    He will reap what he has sown.

  • Rules of Blazon

    The woes of two increasingly desperate men who are losing to Donald Trump. By a lot.

    • Indiana Pearl

      The Donald is losing it – insulting Iowans before the caucases is foolish.

      • SWohio

        That must be why his polling numbers are going up up up!

        • Indiana Pearl

          It’s because Baggers are stupid.

      • vippy

        Iowans need a kick in their rears and keep that darn ETHANOL to themselves and don’t bring it down South!


    Amnesty by any other name is amnesty. The point is they still get to stay.

    • Indiana Pearl

      “Making America White Again” . . .

      • Boss Tweed


        • Indiana Pearl

          I can fix you up. Ms. Erica says no.

          • Boss Tweed

            I can imagine how much you want to…..

          • Indiana Pearl

            Saw Rachel’s photo on-line – she’s too cute for you . . .


    “”We’re potentially careening down this road of nominating somebody who frankly isn’t fit to be president in terms of the basic ability and temperament to do the job,” this strategist said. “It’s not just that it could be somebody Hillary could destroy electorally, but what if Hillary hits a banana peel and this person becomes president?””

    – Time for GOP panic? — Washington Post

    • Hillary did hit a banana peel, turns out Bill was a racist, and Obama did become president.
      American won’t make the same mistake twice.
      Dems have zero chance of winning in 2016.

      • WUSRPH

        Didn’t you predict a GOP win in 2012 and 2008?
        Guess you don’t matter being wrong since the Democrats got more votes than the GOP candidates in 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections. We’ll make it 6 out of 7 next year.

        • Boss Tweed

          “As long as I count the Votes, what are you going to do about it?”

          • Indiana Pearl

            Multiple personality disorder re-emerges . . .

          • safe zone…no gin allowed.

    • SWohio

      That’s ok, the liberals are panicking enough for every one –

  • dave in texas

    It seems to me that a big part of the issue (and Erica addresses this toward the end of the article) is that the word amnesty has come to be practically meaningless in any serious discussion about immigration reform. Like any other political buzzword, it means whatever the person using it wants it to mean. Cruz and Rubio are both saying essentially the same thing: “Amnesty is bad, the other guy wants it, and I don’t” I expect if you asked any of the other candidates, they’d say much the same thing. This is all just a smokescreen to disguise the fact that none of these candidates have a workable (or even coherent) plan to address immigration issues. They seem to feel that accusing everybody else of being in favor of amnesty will be sufficient to placate the nativist reaches of the primary electorate.

  • This makes me respect Cruz even more, shows he knows how to play hardball, doesn’t bluff easily and respects the rule of law.
    Now that would be a different kind of president than we have now and would be quite refreshing.


    Cruz tried to defuse this attack today by releasing an immigration plan that, on the surface, seems much closer to Trumps than he had been in the past. However, from the TT article I cannot tell if he has adopted the “Deportation Force” idea of is still (without saying so) going to allow most, if not all, of the more than 11 million already here to stay. He does say “no amnesty” several times…..but, as with most people using that term, does not really define what it means. I will look around to see if I can find a copy of the PLAN…and see if those questions are answered.
    As noted below, amnesty is one of the most misused terms in politics these days perhaps only second to “conservative”.

    • That is funny I fully comprehend what both amnesty and conservative means. But then I’m not a spin meister or a word smith.

      • WUSRPH

        That is to be expected of a person like you who can and does believe a dozen impossible things before breakfast.

        • Early to bed early to rise makes a man healthy wealthy and wise….

          • WUSRPH

            It is fairly obvious then that you stay up very late and sleep away much of the day.

          • Nope usually up by 4 or 5…..and have worked a full day by noon and then hit it till late at night. Its called work ethic….something the left isn’t acquainted with…

          • Indiana Pearl

            He’s up in the middle of the night sending out screeds.

            “I play golf six times a week,” he says.

          • wha….10am isn’t the middle of night….

          • Indiana Pearl

            You were at 3:00 a.m. in June.


    Here is a website that describes Cruz’s plan more fully. Says he wants to increase the number of deportations……also says some of it will encourage what Mitt Romney termed “self-deportation” by making things tougher for those already here. Also says he wants to investigate to granting for visas for skilled workers (He had previously said he wanted to 5 times more permits for such workers). Also some apparently meaningless language that in effect says he will not let the Congress increase the size of the various quotas for regular immigration while unemployment is high….as if it would do so in the first place……(He might have some trouble selling that one size, despite all the bad mouthing by the GOP, the official unemployment rate is now at the lowest level in many, many years.)


    This is the link to the official Cruz release.


  • Who will dems vote for in the republican primary?

    That is correct, they been told no need to vote in democrat primary…

    “Hillary Rodham Clinton has locked up public support from half the Democratic Party insiders who get to cast ballots at the party’s national convention.”


    Dems don’t have to vote in their primary their candidate is already chosen for them…..sigh.

  • Jerry Patterson

    The unasked question for all the R presidential candidate is “Do you support the deportation of all 12 million illegally in this country, YES or NO?” To Trumps credit, he has answered yes. None of the others will answer the question, nor have they been asked in a manner that would require a yes or no answer. They know full well their answer if they were truthful would be no. So therefore all but Trump can be accused of being amnesty supporters in the Tea Party definition of amnesty, including Cruz. Trump has the freedom to answer yes because he’s an idiot. No matter who is elected, we are not going to deport 12 million illegals, nor do I want to live in a country with enough federal police power to do so. Waco, Ruby Ridge, Fast and Furious…We have too many federal cops already.

    • Rules of Blazon

      You are admitting that the guy you will vote for (if he is your party’s nominee) is an idiot. What does that make you?

      • PoliticalWaif

        Speaking of idiots, where did Jerry Patterson say he would be voting for a Trump nominee in his post?

        Hearing voices and seeing things, are we? Or maybe reading isn’t your strong suite.

        • Rules of Blazon

          It’s strong “suit,” not “suite.” Spelling obviously isn’t yours.

          If Jerry Patterson won’t vote for Trump in the general election if Trump is the Republican nominee, that’s fine. Let’s see Jerry say so. In writing.

          Last election, if I had a nickel for every Republican I heard whining about how they would never vote for Romney because he’s not conservative enough who ended up voting for Romney, I’d be richer than, well, Romney.

          • John Johnson

            Quit acting like you are so surprised. Everyone knows that no one in their right mind would vote for a conniving, manipulative, liar like Clinton. The alternative is voting for whoever is left standing on the GOP side…possibly while holding our noses.

          • Rules of Blazon

            I’m not surprised at all that you Republicans who spout off about how Trump is an idiot or a clown are still going to vote for him. That was my original point, which you just validated.

            I really think that Trump is now the face and voice of the Republican party for a reason. And yes, he is an idiot.

          • John Johnson

            You just don’t get it. As bad as he is at making outrageous comments, he’s still better than Hillary. Look at her favoribility ratings. She crooked as a dog’s hindleg…and lies, to boot.

          • Rules of Blazon

            What don’t I get? You Republicans are fully prepared to vote for someone you freely admit is an idiot. That’s what makes you Republicans.

          • John Johnson

            It simply means that our worst is better than anything you have to offer.

          • Indiana Pearl
          • Jerry Patterson

            Not sure if my comment above posted in the sequence. I won’t vote for Trump if he’s the R nominee, and I’m not voting for Hillary. In that case Jim Webb’s my guy. I’d be pleased to vote for a fellow Marine Vietnam vet-I hope he runs as an independent. JP

          • Indiana Pearl

            Will you write in Webb if Trump is the GOP nominee?

          • Jerry Patterson

            If that option is available. I’ve never done a write in. Better yet, Webb is on the ballot as an independent.

          • PoliticalWaif

            yeah… Trump is “the face and voice” of the GOP like you’re the poster child village idiot of the lib/progs. I actually have friends on both sides of the aisle. None who, like you, has an IQ less than his shoe size.

            You see how that broad paint brush works?

          • PoliticalWaif

            Then apparently I, like a good portion of the conservative electorate (if you believe both unfavorables plus “will not vote for” poll numbers) am not “in my right mind”. Bernie, Hillary or Trump will not be getting my vote under any circumstances. Hillary’s ideology and proposed policies are offensive. Equally, if not more, offensive, is Mr. “round ’em up” Trump and his mass deportation. Few conservatives in their right mind will be voting for that.

            Nor will any relish seeing the predictable general election ad campaigns with archival footage of soldiers with weapons, prodding grannies and kids on to box cars, ala Hitler.

            Just when did conservatives become big government – i.e. the tripled (minimal) expanded police state in ICE/INS/local LEOs, not to mention their pensions and the needed increase in the judicial system? When did conservatives become complacent in probable cause for apprehension, willing to forfeit due process to meet Trump’s self imposed deportation schedule of 11-12 million people?

          • John Johnson

            Regardless of what he says, 12M people will not be rounded up and deported. Furthermore, he will never be the GOP nominee for President.

          • PoliticalWaif

            That Trump promises that as part of his campaign platform is enough. I do agree it couldn’t happen, without a boatload of lawsuits for illegal detention/searches/raids.

            I started out believing it couldn’t happen. But Trump supporters are much like Obama and Hillary supporters. Their heroes/heroines can do no wrong.

            Even if Trump doesn’t get the needed delegates, he has the cash to stay in for the long haul – much like Romney. Which would make him at least a power broker at the convention, if not the nominee.

          • John Johnson

            Regardless…he will not be the nominee.

          • Unwound

            why is that

          • PoliticalWaif

            Yet Romney lost, yes? And haven’t the GOP conservatives chalked that loss up to so many staying home?

            Your nitpicking on my typos is noted. I’ll be sure to make sure to grade your future comments, sans content, as well.

            You might do well to focus on content instead, don’t you think?

          • Rules of Blazon

            Typos are human, but since you introduced yourself to me by questioning my ability to read, I couldn’t resist calling you out.

            And now I will call out Jerry: Mr. Patterson, do you pledge not to vote in the general election for the idiot Trump?

          • PoliticalWaif

            What business of yours is it who anyone chooses to vote for? Especially a year in advance?


            And I introduced myself to you because of your sheer chutzpah, inferring you knew who he would vote for when that was never part of his comment.

    • PoliticalWaif

      While I will agree that Cruz has studiously avoided the question – even via friendly fire pundits – the majority of the other leading GOP candidates are on record that mass deportations is absurd. So you are incorrect there.

      I’m a conservative Constitutionalists, and no mass deportation type, rounding up people asking for papers in 18-24 months, is going to get my vote.

      But then, neither will Hillary or Bernie.

    • John Johnson

      Could not agree more. Anyone saying that we are going to round up and ship out 12M or so is crazy. However, I do like a lot of what Ted Cruz is advocating, but some of it that as been picked up by acolytes like Sen. Konni Burton up here in senate dist. 10 is flat out goofy. She continues to broadcast a condemning message that she is against all forms of civic-corporate partnerships. She calls it “picking and choosing winners”. She probably flys American, drives a GM vehicle, and has been to Six Flags and Cowboy games…and I know she has been to Ranger games because she likes to take selfies from behind homeplate and post them on Facebook (all Tarrant County businesses with tax abatement deals). She somehow wants to equate these mutually rewarding agreements to Perry’s slush fund giveaways where he gave money and got some deposited in his campaign account. I have asked her on her Facebook page how the two relate; I have asked her how Tarrant County taxpayers get cheated, and I have asked her what kind of economic impact we would see if they weren’t here… If we hadn’t been willing to deal and all went to Aneheim or Orlando or someplace else that was. Other than telling me that if I disagree with her I should not visit her FB page, I got nothing. I don’t think this is the way it’s supposed to work.

    • Jerry Patterson

      I won’t be voting for Trump if he’s the R nominee. I won’t vote for Hillary either. My hope is that Jim Webb runs as an independent. I’d feel good about voting for another Marine Vietnam vet. JP

  • You’re fact checking Hillary? How dare you?

    ““With all due respect, Andrea, why on earth are we talking about this?” Mitchell hit back: “Because she brought it up in New Hampshire the other day. If she hadn’t brought it up, it would not be an issue in this campaign.”


    Hard to believe someone who claims to be a journalist and is a highly paid shill for MSNBC actually fact checks a Hillary lie. Bill likes his interns and Hillary likes her lies.

  • Jay Trainor

    If, “Talk is cheap,” then what is it called when Ted shuts down the government – knowing he isn’t going to accomplish anything? The first thing that comes to mind are the words: hurtful, mean spirited, blind ambition and selfish. Why would anyone but a handful of billionaires support this guy?

    • When Ted shuts down the government we all win.

      • Indiana Pearl

        Yeah, we all get to pay $24 billion for his childish hijinks.

        • SWohio

          Obama’s hijinks not only caused the sequester, but allowed ISIS to develop and grow.

          What a guy.

          • Indiana Pearl

            The Boy King GWB is the primary architect of ISIS. His appointee, Paul Bremer, fired all the Baathists when we conquered Iraq. Who do you think ISIS is? Ex-Baathists . . .

            Read “Assassins Gate” by military historian Thomas Ricks and stop making a fool of yourself.

          • Boosh’s fault? I was wondering when this moronic comment would surface.
            “Yet the story of ISIS’s rise is far more complex, former U.S. officials and Middle East analysts say. While both Bush and Obama deserve some blame, ISIS could not have become such a battle-hardened, well-funded jihadi group without the help of leaders and sympathizers in Iraq, Syria, Turkey and the Sunni monarchies of the Persian Gulf. Their support for ISIS—over Washington’s objections—underscores the limits of American power and influence in the region. As Douglas Ollivant, a former director for Iraq on the National Security Council for both Bush and Obama, puts it: “We Americans are the supporting cast, not the lead actors.”

            However if FDR hadn’t been so drug addled he might have had the foresight to put bases in the MidEast after WWII. Then we may have had some influence.
            JJB common sense 101.

      • enp1955

        Explain “winning”. So no SS checks go out, contracts are delayed or voided, workers are laid off (w/no unemployment), parks are closed, border control slows or stops, the VA quits seeing vets – and so much more. If this is winning, what the heck is losing?

        • Any government worker scrambling is a win….
          Ever seen it?…neither have I

          • enp1955

            Yeah, actually, I have. But I wouldn’t expect that you would have. If there were zero government workers tomorrow, what do you think would happen?

          • absolutely nothing. Any work accredited to the government is done by contractors, except the harassment of US citizens that is solely done by government workers that owe their cush tax payer funded jobs to the dems.

          • enp1955

            So the DoJ, the Border Patrol, the DEA, the FBI – all do nothing? I’ll be darned! And you do realize that if the government shuts down, the contractors don’t get paid either, right?

          • Indiana Pearl

            You’ve had your snout in the government trough for years.

    • Russell Steadman

      Nice head fake from a liberal like you.

    • SWohio

      Let’s remember a little history: When ‘ted’ ‘shut down’ the government (hint: It was obama, not the GOP, that forced this), Michelle’s ‘Let’s Move’ website remained up, all base commissaries were closed, and the golf course at Andrews AFB was open and fully staffed.

      “Yes, in fact, the sequestration was President Obama’s plan.”
      –Gene Sperling, Chief Whitehouse Economic Advisor.

      “The sequester was something that was discussed… and as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward”

      –Jay Carney, Obama Press Secretary

      • PoliticalWaif

        Sequestration was an option first suggested by the Heritage Foundation as a solution, months earlier.

        While people might view sequestered cuts thru their own prisms, it’s the only “cuts”… which really aren’t cuts… that anyone has gotten thru recent Congressional sessions. And yet no one wants to take credit for it.

        Amazing, politics is, eh?

  • Dems are corrupt in every way possible….

    “Democratic presidential moderator John Dickerson of CBS News met privately with each of the three campaigns for separate, private meetings to preview the debate and tried to innocently be billed as “informational in nature.”


    Now grandma you stand here and try to stay awake…..and say this when I ask this…..wow just wow.

    • SWohio

      Every Dem debate will be a joke.

    • John Johnson

      Geeezzz. What a crock. How can a meeting before a debate be kosher? Why doesn’t the press just wear their Dem lapel pins? Maybe a Dem beanie.

  • PoliticalWaif

    Finally… pointing out the obvious to the oblivious on Cruz’s attempted sleight of hand.

    Now… any bets as to whether he will answer the direct question posed to him by friendly fire pundits on mass deportation?

  • Slightly daffy or full blown looney?

    “Noonan argued that Sanders’ statement “makes him to many people look slightly daffy like someone who doesn’t understand what the real subject is” because “[t]his is about terrorism. This isn’t about climate change and deserts and people migrating because it’s hot.””


  • Indiana Pearl

    “. . . while Cruz, who’s reminiscent, physically and rhetorically, to Joe McCarthy, comes off as more intelligent and more sinister.”




  • vippy

    Would be morel like 30 million not 11 million. Please, be real.


    When did this duffest smuck sell his soul like Judas Iscariotes at what point in hid miralble a


    Sorry gang at seventy two years of age I’ve been blessed with neuropathy on hand and on both pinky and ring figures; hence reaching with my right hand I occasionally engage the “enter key.” I try to get Socratically engaged. I don’t hate this duffest smuck, but could never drink a beer with Canadian Cruise Missile Cruz. you see I’ve seen that face in high school, college and in forty-five years in insurance industry. Guys like these are sad human beings, they only care if the person or object has some utility…. He reeks narcissism from top down. In addition to the latter rant our friend Babba Ted is the antithesis a good public servant, who has the interest of those he purports to be concern about.

  • 6660splendidday