Rand Paul: Ted Cruz Can’t Get Anything Done Legislatively

[carlton]

The Ted Cruz amendment was just to defund planned parenthood. It didn't do anything else. That's what your friend was referring to on tweeter. He is correct that Rand opposed it, only Mike Lee supported it.

If you want to pretend it didn't happen, I don't think that strategy will work to win the vote of your friend, as he can just check, and already did.

Ted Cruz's amendment was attached to the stop gap funding bill, if the bill would have been passed yes pp would be defunded (temporarily) but spending across the board (debt) would be increased by $400 billion dollars.

 

[goldwater's ghost]

How many battles you going to start Rand? Ted Cruz is the beloved molotav throwing berserker of lots of grassroot faithful. Couldn't you just focus on trump or fiorina if you wanted a new battle. One step forward two steps back

 

[notsure]

Rand may not be catering to the basic electorate, those who are satisfied with entertainers for Presidents and rally around childish behavior and immature remarks. Maybe Rand is working on the part of the electorate. like legislators or people who don't get polled, and who are not buying this Donald circus or Cruz's childish behavior and empty rhetoric. Just maybe, Rand is the only adult on the campaign trail and it could benefit him to exhibit that. I'm sure the campaign has done their polling, and they know what to say at this point and what candidates they need to cut off.

 

[jj-]

To the extent you are right about 2, you advocate chasing the polls up and down and attaching one's actions to the wind.

No, I didn't say or imply that. That's just your imagination.

 

[notsure]

Cruz has got to go. Cruz is one of Rands' major obstacles in this race. And Cruz knows this, and is knowingly and willingly siphoning off tea party etc. votes from Paul and trying to split the freedom caucus. Cruz has already thrown Rand under the bus more than once. Cruz once rallied with the Pauls and praised their name, but for what? For himself only. He never had the courtesy to endorse Ron in 2012 and he's undermining Rand this time around. Cruz needs to remove himself for several reasons.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

When someone wins a House or Senate seat and is sworn in, they have made promises to voters and donors, have publicaly expressed their principles, and have sworn to defend the Constitution. That is where their loyalties should begin and end. Who promoted "Senate rules" (that the candidate did not run on, or swear to defend) to this equal level of homage? If Rand is going to be the anti-establishment statesman, he needs to consistently present that way, not appear to be nice towards reporters, or defend the Mitch McConnells, the rules be darned.

Rand should be attacking Cruz the same way he should have addressed Trump---via triangulation. Instead of attacking the candidate directly, he should have addressed both ends of the issue, which is frustration over the leadership holding the rank and file back, AND Senators who are dividing the Tea Party, and have treated others so poorly that they can't get a bill co-sponosred. Rand would come out looking like a statesman and a outsider on this basis, instead of merely an establishment guy bashing other outsider candidates for self-serving reasons.

 

[goldwater's ghost]

When someone wins a House or Senate seat and is sworn in, they have made promises to voters and donors, have publicaly expressed their principles, and have sworn to defend the Constitution. That is where their loyalties should begin and end. Who promoted "Senate rules" (that the candidate did not run on, or swear to defend) to this equal level of homage? If Rand is going to be the anti-establishment statesman, he needs to consistently present that way, not appear to be nice towards reporters, or defend the Mitch McConnells, the rules be darned.

Rand should be attacking Cruz the same way he should have addressed Trump---via triangulation. Instead of attacking the candidate directly, he should have addressed both ends of the issue, which is frustration over the leadership holding the rank and file back, AND Senators who are dividing the Tea Party, and have treated others so poorly that they can't get a bill co-sponosred. Rand would come out looking like a statesman and a outsider on this basis, instead of merely an establishment guy bashing other outsider candidates for self-serving reasons.

THIS

 

[jj-]

Cruz needs to remove himself for several reasons.

Wow, this is really interesting. I didn't know that Cruz's goal in running for President was for Rand to win.

 

[Jonderdonk]

Wow, this is really interesting. I didn't know that Cruz's goal in running for President was for Rand to win.

Duh. Why else would he be running?

 

[notsure]

Wow, this is really interesting. I didn't know that Cruz's goal in running for President was for Rand to win.

Wow, I didn't know this was a Ted Cruz forum. Cruz's goal isn't for Rand to win; I never said anything of the sort. If you've been paying attention long enough, and seen how the Tea Party was hijacked and how Cruz rapidly became the posterboy for neocons who want to call themselves limited gov't conservatives, then you would see that Cruz's only goal was to prevent Rand from rallying the anti-establishment vote. To top it off, Cruz is siphoning support from Rand, knowing full well that he isn't even Constitutionally eligible. Ted Cruz talks a good game and pretends to support the Constitution, but he does't always support in favor of it. He's all talk, and nothing but a deceiver. He's got to go.

 

[65fastback2+2]

All he did was just answer a question he was asked.

shhhhhhhhhhh

keep the facts buried.

It was a rand "attack" lol

 

[65fastback2+2]

When someone wins a House or Senate seat and is sworn in, they have made promises to voters and donors, have publicaly expressed their principles, and have sworn to defend the Constitution. That is where their loyalties should begin and end. Who promoted "Senate rules" (that the candidate did not run on, or swear to defend) to this equal level of homage? If Rand is going to be the anti-establishment statesman, he needs to consistently present that way, not appear to be nice towards reporters, or defend the Mitch McConnells, the rules be darned.

Nope.

First, you are saying they cant uphold the constitution and obey the senate rules they agreed to. HOGWASH. Since when is "acting like a mature adult" against defending the constitution? You can easily do both. I combed through the senate rules twice yesterday...couldnt find a single thing keeping anyone from upholding the constitution.

Second, more than anti-establishment, the people want less conflict and division. Congress' approval rating is so low because they "never can get anything done". And, like Reagan, Rand is putting himself in the place of being a statesman that can work with both sides. Being able to work with both sides is FAR better than trying to be anti-establishment.

The problem is the media and people. They think in extremes. You either need to be rude and call mitch a liar on the senate floor during debate OR you're sticking your nose in mitch's rear/cuddle buddy/etc. There is a HUGE gap here and Rand is in the middle of that where he should be. This is how Rand got a defund planned parenthood bill to the floor for a vote, and Cruz couldnt get a simple roll call vote to the floor...didnt even get 1 vote lol.

I'm hoping people wisen up, though I doubt it. Anti-establishment would just clog the drain more. We dont need a bigger clog. We need someone who is able, as Rand says, to persuade the other side and work with both. Its the smart place to be, and just because morons dont realize that, doesnt make it any less smart.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Nope.

First, you are saying they cant uphold the constitution and obey the senate rules they agreed to. HOGWASH. Since when is "acting like a mature adult" against defending the constitution? You can easily do both. I combed through the senate rules twice yesterday...couldnt find a single thing keeping anyone from upholding the constitution.

I'm saying, neither Cruz or Rand ran to be loyal to Senate rules. If Cruz went overboard in disorienting other members, that's one thing. But if McConnell has been blocking bills and strategies that would get us somewhere, he needs to be called on it, by Cruz and Rand. One can act like an adult, and challenge the mainstream.

The way for Rand to be the statesman is to triangulate the extremes, not join in on being part of the problem by defending the very establishment figures who have blocked progress, while disregarding the very real anti-establishment dynamic the public has displayed during this campaign cycle.

 

[65fastback2+2]

I'm saying, neither Cruz or Rand ran to be loyal to Senate rules. If Cruz went overboard in disorienting other members, that's one thing. But if McConnell has been blocking bills and strategies that would get us somewhere, he needs to be called on it, by Cruz and Rand. One can act like an adult, and challenge the mainstream.

The way for Rand to be the statesman is to triangulate the extremes, not join in on being part of the problem by defending the very establishment figures who have blocked progress, while disregarding the very real anti-establishment dynamic the public has displayed during this campaign cycle.

When did Cruz ever call Harry Reid a liar and manipulator in a senate debate?

I'll wait for the link to the youtube video...I want to see it.

This was Cruz making a political move and nothing more.

 

[PaleoPaul]

If only Ron Paul was 25 years younger, then I'd say he should primary Ted Cruz in 2018.

 

[Bruehound]

This hits the nail on the head.

This is only somewhat related to Rands comments today, these are more thoughts that I've had the last few weeks. I think Rand currently has a perception problem. He is running as the anti-establishment candidate but I think there is a perception that Rand is trying to play nice with the establishment, so it's kind of hard to buy into that message if he's seen as wanting to play nice. Nothing riles up the grassroots up more than when people go after the establishment. Is there anyone here that dislikes when Rand goes after McCain? I get fired up when Rand calls McCain out, I think it's something Rand should do more often. I was thinking to start reversing the current perception of Rand in conservative circles he should start calling out the leadership (what I think the perception of Rand is anyways as an outside observer). Before Boehner announced his resignation I was thinking Rand should start going after him, and Mitch. I think people would have loved that and it would help Rand to reclaim his position as the anti-establishment candidate in the eyes of those that feel differently.

Now to Rand's point, that doesn't neccessarily have to be in the form of name calling, but I do think Rand should go after the establishment more aggressively. Calling out Cruz for name calling (while may be right on principle) I think only adds to the perception that Rand wants to play nice, which again, makes it a harder sell to the voters that he is the anti-establishment. I know Rand is anti-establishment, but I've been a Rand supporter for awhile now and have been following his moves more closely. I think Rand missed a messaging opportunity when basically the whole system came out against him for blocking the Patriot Act... hell McConell himself went right after Paul, and while Mitch didn't call Rand out by name it was very clear who he was referring to. Rand should have done more to leverage that moment as someone who will buck his leadership and as someone who is fearless. Those of us on the forum are a very small minority, so while many here may know these things, the rest of the public may not (plus generally speaking, people tend to have short term memory so some reminders here and there could do some good), I think Rand/his campaign needs to do a better job with messaging and selling the voting public on him being the anti-establishment candidate. Again, while Rand may be right on principle, calling out Cruz for name calling isn't going to win him over any voters, Rand needs to show people that he is the anti-establishment candidate, if anything, people are going to see his comments and come off with the impression that Cruz is the most anti-establishment

Just my opinion, maybe (hopefully) I'm way wrong here. I'm 100% behind Rand but every now and then he does something that makes me feel like he doesn't entirely understand the disatisfaction people share towards congress

 

[Intoxiklown]

That's what you're saying. It's not ok to call Senators names, but everyone else is fine because they're out of Congress. You have such a bad memory you forgot what you just posted above.

Don't take this as an attack, but food for thought.

I don't know you, hence I don't anything about you. That said, have you ever worked in upper echelon management? I have worked in upper management in international production facilities for the past several years, and I can assure you that I have never met the fist person to sit in a large meeting and call peers names (Owners excluded). That is, not and keep their ability to move forward with goals, and eventually, their job. People that think good management style means a heroic asshole being an asshole to the different departments, quite frankly, most likely punches a time card at their work. Meaning, they aren't supporting an answer to a problem. Rather, they have found an embodiment of what they think would be them, if only those bastards who plan and insure that the multi-billon company who employs them does those figures yearly, would recognize their (perceived by that individual) "tough guy" leadership potential. In other words, they have found justification for their bitterness, and now have proof through via living their life through their new "hero".

Not to say there isn't a time for tough managerial approaches, but those are for behind closed doors. Someone in a leadership position that attacks others within their organization openly will always be seen as a confrontational child, making up for lack of substance by being aggressive. Most importantly, they are seen as unprofessional. People that conduct themselves in such a manner always wind up hurting their teams, because they've broken ties with all the logistical and support group within their organization. It's kind of hard to get help from a peer, when those inevitable moments of Murphy's Law happens, and the people you need to help you jump through these hoops also happens to be the person you talked stupid to to look cool for your employees. In the private sector, that's called creating a hostile work environment, and will (sooner or later) land you a meeting with HR and VP of Operations to discuss your dismissal.

I know a lot of people see this, and love it. To me, it is extremely telling.

 

[rich34]

After reading that another campaign is spreading falsehoods saying that Rand's campaign is about over and then seeing Rand attacking Cruz, I'd say Rand said this to Cruz because it's his campaign that is the one playing tricks. I understand some are upset with Rand's choice to go on the attack, but if the Cruz campaign is behind the rumor's what do you expect the man to do? Sit back and take it? Rand hit Cruz where it hurts, basically calling him an incompetent lawmaker. Of course we know we'll never have the media on Rand's side in reporting the truth so hell anything he says is going to be misconstrued and will never be told in truth. But when you're attacked in a way that Cruz's campaign choose to attack, sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do.

 

[65fastback2+2]

Don't take this as an attack, but food for thought.

I don't know you, hence I don't anything about you. That said, have you ever worked in upper echelon management? I have worked in upper management in international production facilities for the past several years, and I can assure you that I have never met the fist person to sit in a large meeting and call peers names (Owners excluded). That is, not and keep their ability to move forward with goals, and eventually, their job. People that think good management style means a heroic asshole being an asshole to the different departments, quite frankly, most likely punches a time card at their work. Meaning, they aren't supporting an answer to a problem. Rather, they have found an embodiment of what they think would be them, if only those bastards who plan and insure that the multi-billon company who employs them does those figures yearly, would recognize their (perceived by that individual) "tough guy" leadership potential. In other words, they have found justification for their bitterness, and now have proof through via living their life through their new "hero".

Not to say there isn't a time for tough managerial approaches, but those are for behind closed doors. Someone in a leadership position that attacks others within their organization openly will always be seen as a confrontational child, making up for lack of substance by being aggressive. Most importantly, they are seen as unprofessional. People that conduct themselves in such a manner always wind up hurting their teams, because they've broken ties with all the logistical and support group within their organization. It's kind of hard to get help from a peer, when those inevitable moments of Murphy's Law happens, and the people you need to help you jump through these hoops also happens to be the person you talked stupid to to look cool for your employees. In the private sector, that's called creating a hostile work environment, and will (sooner or later) land you a meeting with HR and VP of Operations to discuss your dismissal.

I know a lot of people see this, and love it. To me, it is extremely telling.

Bingo. And if anyone really wants to be able to conduct themselves in such a respectful manner and be good at it, I would recommend Dale Carnegie's book: http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671027034

It goes over very powerful ways to win people over and influence them to your views...and not one sentence is spent on calling people liar's on a public floor.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Not to say there isn't a time for tough managerial approaches, but those are for behind closed doors. Someone in a leadership position that attacks others within their organization openly will always be seen as a confrontational child, making up for lack of substance by being aggressive. Most importantly, they are seen as unprofessional. People that conduct themselves in such a manner always wind up hurting their teams, because they've broken ties with all the logistical and support group within their organization. It's kind of hard to get help from a peer, when those inevitable moments of Murphy's Law happens, and the people you need to help you jump through these hoops also happens to be the person you talked stupid to to look cool for your employees. In the private sector, that's called creating a hostile work environment, and will (sooner or later) land you a meeting with HR and VP of Operations to discuss your dismissal.

I know a lot of people see this, and love it. To me, it is extremely telling.

Once upon a time, a young rabbi walked into the temple and kicked over the moneychangers' tables. He had some rather insulting things to openly say about people within his organization, but said them nonetheless.

WE ARE MAJORING IN THE MINORS when we prioritize style over substance, or decorum above truth. Cruz indeed was probably acting for self-serving reasons, but that does not mean the issue he jumped on was invalid. It was appropriate to hold McConnell accountable, and at this point, openly. The lack of comparable attacks on Reid is irrelevant, given that no one was expecting good treatment from the Democrats.

McConnell is expected to be representing his own party's rank and file, not running resistance for the establishment--so his doing so is more worthy of being held to account. If you're running the temple, it's on you that there are moneychangers in it.