supermario21
05-04-2013, 05:57 PM
John McCain @SenJohnMcCain 2h
Must-read RT @WSJopinion: Cruz Revisionism http://on.wsj.com/15aTziJ
View summary
Freshman Senator Ted Cruz wants to shake up Washington, which is certainly needed. But if we can offer the Texan one piece of friendly advice: Try to avoid getting a reputation for rewriting history, especially recent history that everyone remembers.
That thought comes to mind after we heard about Mr. Cruz's speech last weekend to FreedomWorks, the tea party-affiliated activist group. While making the case for his filibuster strategy on the Senate gun-control bill, Mr. Cruz suddenly took our name in vain.
"All of the reporters said, 'Okay, you guys have lost, and that shows what imbeciles you are.' In fact the WSJ wrote two op-eds bashing Rand [Paul] and Mike [Lee] and me for being imbeciles for fighting on this. Didn't we understand?" Mr. Cruz told the crowd.
"And yet you go forward to a week ago when the votes came on the floor of the Senate. Every single proposal in President Obama's gun-control agenda that would have undermined the Second Amendment, every single one was voted down on the floor of the Senate. I got to tell you—the look of shock from the senior Democrats. They were convinced they had won."
This account is wrong about his strategy, our commentary, and what happened. We also didn't call him an "imbecile," or any other name. The strategy of Mr. Cruz and his comrades was to use the filibuster to block any gun control measure from even getting votes on the floor. We criticized that as misguided, since it would let Senate Democrats avoid difficult votes and open Republicans to Mr. Obama's criticism that they were obstructionists for blocking a Senate debate and votes.
In the event, Mr. Cruz's GOP colleagues agreed with us. They helped to override his filibuster attempt and let the bill proceed to the floor. Whereupon a bipartisan coalition emerged that defeated the gun-control amendments, as each one failed to get 60 votes or in some cases (the assault-weapons ban) even 50.
Mr. Cruz now wants to take credit for that victory when he opposed the strategy that led to it. Had he and Mr. Paul had their way, no such bipartisan coalition would have emerged. Mr. Obama and Majority Leader Harry Reid would be blaming the GOP for their defeat, and moderate Republicans in the Northeast would be under more political pressure. Now gun-rights Democrats are feeling the political heat from the White House and the gun-control PACs.
Normally we'd ignore this insider politics, but Senators Cruz and Paul have been declaring for all to hear that they and a few others are the only conservatives of principle in politics. That's not the way it turned out on gun control because the dispute wasn't about principle. The debate was about how to fight for principle in an intelligent way that had the best chance of winning.
Mr. Cruz will have more success in the Senate, and in his mooted Presidential candidacy, if he stops pretending that he's Nathan Hale and everyone else is Benedict Arnold.
Fortunately Amash came to defend Cruz...
Justin Amash @repjustinamash 17m
You're such a #wackobird, @SenTedCruz. Leave to adults. “@SenJohnMcCain: Must-read RT @WSJopinion: Cruz Revisionism http://on.wsj.com/15aTziJ ”
More of this, and Cruz is going to be even more on our team than we ever thought he'd be.
Must-read RT @WSJopinion: Cruz Revisionism http://on.wsj.com/15aTziJ
View summary
Freshman Senator Ted Cruz wants to shake up Washington, which is certainly needed. But if we can offer the Texan one piece of friendly advice: Try to avoid getting a reputation for rewriting history, especially recent history that everyone remembers.
That thought comes to mind after we heard about Mr. Cruz's speech last weekend to FreedomWorks, the tea party-affiliated activist group. While making the case for his filibuster strategy on the Senate gun-control bill, Mr. Cruz suddenly took our name in vain.
"All of the reporters said, 'Okay, you guys have lost, and that shows what imbeciles you are.' In fact the WSJ wrote two op-eds bashing Rand [Paul] and Mike [Lee] and me for being imbeciles for fighting on this. Didn't we understand?" Mr. Cruz told the crowd.
"And yet you go forward to a week ago when the votes came on the floor of the Senate. Every single proposal in President Obama's gun-control agenda that would have undermined the Second Amendment, every single one was voted down on the floor of the Senate. I got to tell you—the look of shock from the senior Democrats. They were convinced they had won."
This account is wrong about his strategy, our commentary, and what happened. We also didn't call him an "imbecile," or any other name. The strategy of Mr. Cruz and his comrades was to use the filibuster to block any gun control measure from even getting votes on the floor. We criticized that as misguided, since it would let Senate Democrats avoid difficult votes and open Republicans to Mr. Obama's criticism that they were obstructionists for blocking a Senate debate and votes.
In the event, Mr. Cruz's GOP colleagues agreed with us. They helped to override his filibuster attempt and let the bill proceed to the floor. Whereupon a bipartisan coalition emerged that defeated the gun-control amendments, as each one failed to get 60 votes or in some cases (the assault-weapons ban) even 50.
Mr. Cruz now wants to take credit for that victory when he opposed the strategy that led to it. Had he and Mr. Paul had their way, no such bipartisan coalition would have emerged. Mr. Obama and Majority Leader Harry Reid would be blaming the GOP for their defeat, and moderate Republicans in the Northeast would be under more political pressure. Now gun-rights Democrats are feeling the political heat from the White House and the gun-control PACs.
Normally we'd ignore this insider politics, but Senators Cruz and Paul have been declaring for all to hear that they and a few others are the only conservatives of principle in politics. That's not the way it turned out on gun control because the dispute wasn't about principle. The debate was about how to fight for principle in an intelligent way that had the best chance of winning.
Mr. Cruz will have more success in the Senate, and in his mooted Presidential candidacy, if he stops pretending that he's Nathan Hale and everyone else is Benedict Arnold.
Fortunately Amash came to defend Cruz...
Justin Amash @repjustinamash 17m
You're such a #wackobird, @SenTedCruz. Leave to adults. “@SenJohnMcCain: Must-read RT @WSJopinion: Cruz Revisionism http://on.wsj.com/15aTziJ ”
More of this, and Cruz is going to be even more on our team than we ever thought he'd be.