[mc_name name=’Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’C001098′ ]:
My first piece of advice to you is this: you need to back off of [mc_name name=’Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’R000595′ ] and not attack him with so much intensity because a)you’re gonna need some votes from rubio supporters the same way you need votes from Trump supporters, and b)If you becomes the nominee, Rubio would be by far the best choice for VP imo, but that would only work if you don’t tear him to shreds now and vice versa.
Your book is called a Time for Truth, and you’ve always had a reputation for telling the truth about your record and where you stand on the issues that matter. As of right now, that reputation is in danger of being tarnished.
It seemed to me like you got caught up in the heat of the moment with [mc_name name=’Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’R000595′ ] during the debate and said something you didn’t intend to say, which is that you’ve never supported legalization for the illegal immigrants who are already here.
There’s only two things to conclude from this statement of yours: either you were lying then, when you said that you wanted the bill to pass with the amendments you added to it, or you lied at the debate, when you said the exact opposite.
Later on you said those amendments were always meant to be a “poison pill” to reveal the true nature of the democrats’ intentions about prioritzing amnesty over border security, but that’s not what you said at the time. You said your desire was to legalize those who were here illegally and to pass immigration reform.
Now you say that you’ve never been for legalization. This is exactly the kind of political game we’ve grown acustomed to from career politicians, but not from you, until now.
I’ve never seen you so defensive and on your heels as you were in this interview with Bret Baier. He wasn’t attacking you or being unfair, he was simply playing clips of things you’ve said in the past and asking you why there’s inconsistencies between then and now.
Your advisers should’ve already expected this and had you prepared for a simple and clear response. The fact that they didn’t, considering how big of an issue this is, is troubling to me.
So you need to clear this up, and fast. This was Rubio’s biggest weakness, but if he can convince enough republicans that you aren’t telling the truth about your position on it, both past and present, then he’ll have muddied the waters enough to neutralize you on this issue.
I’m sorry but there’s just no other explanation, either you lied about trying to legalize illegals back then, or you lied at the debate, because you said the exact opposite of what you said in the past, and we have the tape to prove it, as Bret Baier pointed out. If you intentionally lied back then and went around telling everyone in interviews that you wanted to legalize the illegals, even though that wasn’t really your intent, then come out and say that.
But you have to clear this up one way or another, if you just let it sit out there, or dance around the issue and evade the questions, as you did in the interview with Baier, it’s gonna come back to haunt you.
Honestly, to me it seems as if Cruz’s ego is getting in his way in this fight with Rubio. I think he wants to prove to himself and us that he can outsmart Rubio and outdebate him, it’s an intellectual challenge for him. But it’s becoming too personal and too bitter.
If I were in Cruz’s shoes at the debate, when Rubio asked him what his position on legalization was, I would’ve said the following:
“Yes, I supported giving work permits to illegals who are already here, but that was as a compromise to get the best possible bill we could pass on immigration reform. But as president I wouldn’t need to compromise because I would have control of both houses of congress and could sign into law a bill that wouldn’t legalize any illegals or provide a pathway to citizenship.
That’s very different than the gang of 8 bill that you supported Sen rubio, cause it specifically gave amnesty to illegals without guaranteeing border security first, and you not only voted for that bill, but promoted it. You said you learned your lesson, but I didn’t need to learn a lesson, if you have a set of principles you believe in, you stick by them, and you keep your promises that you made to your constituents.
When we ran for the senate, we both promised we’d fight against any immigration reform that gave amnesty to illegals. I kept my promise, you broke yours.
So yes, I did support a version of the bill that would have given work permits to illegals, but that’s very different than the bill you supported, which gave amnesty to illegals without securing the border first.”
Why Cruz didn’t give an answer like this, I have no idea. I guess he wasn’t expecting that honest question from Rubio and it caught him off guard, and he figured he didn’t have time to go for the full explanation I just gave. In politics when you’re explaining you’re losing, especially in a debate that’s more of a circus than anything and is set up for soundbites instead of in depth discussions on policy differences and nuance.
Rubio knew this, that’s why he asked Cruz a question he knew there was no simple answer to- it would take the pressure off of him and distract voters from his own stance and flip flops on immigration to Cruz’s. It worked out better than he could have hoped cause not only did it show that they both have flip flopped on this issue (although Rubio’s flip flop is much bigger), but apparently only Rubio is willing to be honest and admit his change of position, which now makes him seem like the more truthful candidate.
I hope I’m wrong about this but I don’t see how. I hope Cruz comes out with a better explanation, and if any of his supporters have one, feel free to fill me in on it.