Disrupting the Narrative of the New Left, its allies in Academia, Hollywood and the Establishment Media, and examining with honesty the goals of cultural Marxism and the dangers of reactionary and abusive political correctness.
THE NARRATIVE AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
“Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen.”-George Orwell
Friday night in South Carolina, Ted Cruz claimed that he and Marco disagree about defunding Planned Parenthood. The facts in Marco's record say otherwise.
This is a desperate politically motivated attack: Marco has a
sterling pro-life record, has consistently voted to defund Planned
Parenthood, and would make it a priority to protect life as POTUS.
Here's just how dishonest Cruz's attack is: The nonpartisan group
National Right to Life has totally rejected it as "inaccurate and
misleading."
In the craziness of a presidential campaign, sometimes rumors get
started that, with the advent of social media, that take hold and appear
to become gospel - even though they're not true. One such Internet
rumor is the false claim that pro-life Florida Senator Marco Rubio
opposes de-funding Planned Parenthood. This rumor is easy to refute, as
Rubio voted not once but three times in recent months for legislation
to de-fund Planned Parenthood.
Refuting the claim, Jahan Wilcox, a spokesman for Rubio, told TheBlaze: "Marco Rubio has always voted with Tim Scott and Joni Ernst to
defund Planned Parenthood and anything to the contrary is false."
Earlier this year, in exclusive comments to LifeNews.com, Rubio
said he would sign a bill to de-fund the Planned Parenthood abortion
business "immediately" if elected president.
It would be a shame if any pro-life candidate lost an election
over false rumors that he or she is not pro-life when the candidate has
compiled a sterling 100% pro-life voting record, as has Rubio.
On the campaign trail, Teddy claims he is the consistent
conservative who voters can trust. However, whether it's immigration,
foreign policy, trade, agriculture, or marriage, voters have long since
learned that Teddy is more #calculaTED than consistent. Now, as he and
his campaign reach for new lows with a series of outright lies and
questionable tactics, voters are learning that he can't be trusted.
Teddy's recent questionable tactics and outright lies include…
CARSON RUMORS: On Iowa caucus night, the Cruz campaign was accused
of "sabotaging Carson" by passing around rumors he was dropping out of
the race."Dr. Ben Carson and his campaign accused Sen. Ted Cruz's team
of sabotaging Carson in the Iowa caucuses Monday night by encouraging
Cruz supporters to tell voters at their caucus sites – incorrectly –
that Carson was dropping out of the race. 'It was happening all over,'
Iowa State Director Ryan Rhodes told MSNBC. 'One of the precincts Candy
[Carson, the candidate's wife] walked into, she had to correct the
record. She actually walked in, in Ankeny, and gave a speech about no,
he's still in the race and that's a lie.'" (MSNBC, 2/1/16)
LIES ABOUT RUBIO'S STRONG SUPPORT FOR MARRIAGE: Weekly Standard's
Michael Warren: Cruz being "shifty" and not forthright in attacking
others on marriage. CAROL COSTELLO: "I will say Michael the gay marriage
issue is probably very important in a state like South Carolina, and he
wants to get ahead of what Ted Cruz is accusing him of." MICHAEL
WARREN: "That's right. Let's be honest here I mean Cruz is being
somewhat shifty on this at least with regard to Marco Rubio. I mean
Rubio came out after that decision and said that while this is the law
of the land, that he would appoint court appointments who would seek to
overturn this law. So Cruz isn't being quite forthright about this."
(CNN, 2/13/16)
LIES TO COVER-UP HIS OWN SUPPORT FOR JOHN ROBERTS: Told NBC that
because John Roberts "didn't have a track record," he "would not have
nominated" him. CHUCK TODD: "You were a big supporter of him, but in
hindsight you're not. Is that because you think that he didn't have a
track record?" CRUZ: "He didn't have a track record and I would not have
nominated John Roberts. Once George Bush nominated him, I supported the
nomination as a Republican nominee." (NBC's "Meet the Press," 2/14/16)
Back in 2005, however, Teddy supported Roberts and specifically
dismissed the "insufficient record" argument against Roberts since "he
has a far longer record that is relevant: his professional career as a
Supreme Court litigator.""His nomination has been met with widespread
praise, from left and right. Nevertheless, there are some who have
raised complaints that his two years on the bench provide insufficient
record for them to assess (and attack) his jurisprudence. That complaint
misses the mark for three reasons. First, his judicial record would
have stretched 14 years, had Senate Democrats not delayed its
consideration twice, in 1991 and again in 2001. When his nomination did
finally make it to the Senate floor, in 2003, he was confirmed by
unanimous consent. Second, many distinguished jurists, such as Chief
Justices William Rehnquist and Earl Warren and Justices O'Connor,
Souter, and Thomas, similarly had very limited experience on the federal
bench prior to ascending to the Court. And third, although two years on
the bench provides a limited number of opinions, he has a far longer
record that is relevant: his professional career as a Supreme Court
litigator." (Ted Cruz, Op-Ed, "The Right Stuff," National Review,
7/20/05)
PUSH POLLS: Cruz faces allegations of conducting push polls in
South Carolina."Ted Cruz denied all knowledge of robocalls being made
in South Carolina on Thursday after Donald Trump accused the Texas
senator's 'people' of 'doing very sleazy and dishonest "pushpolls" on
me.' ...The episode follows a report by The Washington Post published
earlier in the day that refers to robo-calls to potential voters in
South Carolina that become hostile when the respondent voices support
for a candidate other than Cruz. The Texas senator's campaign denied for
that story that it was responsible for the calls, which said they were
being conducted by Remington Research, the name of the consulting firm
started by Jeff Roe, Cruz's campaign manager." (Politico, 2/11/16)
SOFTCORE PORN AD: Cruz campaign removed an ad from air that
featured a softcore porn star."Ted Cruz's campaign has pulled its most
recent ad, ‘Conservatives Anonymous,' after learning one of the actors
in the spot is also a softcore porn star. The ad, which was set at a
group therapy session of conservative voters who feel betrayed by Marco
Rubio on immigration, featured actor Amy Lindsay, who played a woman
telling another group member, ‘Maybe you should vote for more than just a
pretty face next time.' Lindsay has appeared in several softcore porn
films, including Erotic Confessions, Carnal Wishes, Secrets of a
Chambermaid, and Insatiable Desires." (BuzzFeed, 2/12/16)
And, just today...
ADS TAKEN DOWN: South Carolina television stations pull anti-Marco
ad from pro-Cruz group after legal review."Television stations in South
Carolina have pulled an ad from Stand for Truth, the ‘super PAC'
supporting Senator Ted Cruz, after a legal review. The ad, titled
'Sanctuary,' was a version of an ad the group ran in Iowa, criticizing
Marco Rubio for his record on immigration. … 'We had our legal folks
review it, and it was decided that this needed to be pulled and
substituted,' Randy Ingram, the general manager of WBTW in Myrtle Beach,
S.C., said, although he couldn't recall the specifics of the legal
team's decision. He said other stations in the Media General umbrella,
which includes WCBD in Charleston and WSPA in Greenville/Spartanburg,
also pulled the ad. The decision was made on Friday, and the ad was
pulled from rotation on Saturday." (The New York Times, 2/15/16)
NBC News: "Cruz The 'Consistent Conservative' Is Not So Consistent."
"Cruz has altered his position on issues about both national
security and domestic economic policy... While most of the attention
this week has trying to determine where Cruz really stands on
immigration, Cruz has altered his position on issues about both national
security and domestic economic policy." (NBC News, 12/17/15)
The Washington Post:
"Ted Cruz, the campaign slogan goes, is the only 'consistent
conservative' in the 2016 Republican presidential primary. Except,
apparently, when he isn't." (The Washington Post, 12/18/15)
Flip-Flopped on Legal Immigration:
Townhall's Guy Benson: "Cruz has flip-flopped dramatically on a number of his previous immigration views."
"In response, Rubio charged that Cruz supported mass legalization
of illegal immigrants and proposed huge increases in federal issuance of
certain immigration visas and green cards. Cruz shook his head
throughout Rubio's rejoinder, but Rubio was correct on these points.
Cruz has flip-flopped dramatically on a number of his previous
immigration views. The Texan shot back, 'it is not accurate, what he
just said, that I supported legalization.' Sorry, Senator. It's on
tape." (Townhall, Guy Benson, 12/16/15)
Flip-Flopped on H-1B Visas:
In an election year, Cruz said "he would suspend the H-1B program."
"Cruz said he would suspend the H-1B program for 180 days while he
audited the system for abuses, abandoning his prior support for a 500%
increase in the high-tech program." (CNN, 11/13/15)
"Cruz sharply distanced himself from his long-held plan to increase the number of visas for high-tech workers by 500%."
"A month prior, Cruz sharply distanced himself from his long-held
plan to increase the number of visas for high-tech workers by 500%.
Under fire from conservative talk radio hosts who said he was imperiling
American workers, Cruz said he would suspend the program for 180 days
until it could be reformed to his liking." (CNN, 12/17/15)
In 2013, Senator Cruz offered an amendment that would increase the H-1B Visa program from 65,000 to 325,000.
"During the 2013 immigration debate, the Texas senator proposed an
amendment to the comprehensive 'gang of eight' Senate bill that he
boasted would 'dramatically increas[e]' the annual limit on H-1B skilled
guest worker visas - from 65,000 to 325,000 - a five-fold expansion."
(Bloomberg, 8/20/15)
Flip-Flopped on Birthright Citizenship:
Cruz's birthright citizenship position is "the product of a flip-flop that is a couple of years old."
"Post-Trump, Cruz has highlighted his opposition to birthright
citizenship, itself the product of a flip-flop that is a couple of years
old." (Washington Examiner, 11/19/15)
CNN: "Despite his grounding in the grass-roots, Cruz has had to
quickly react at times to Trump's envelope-pushing brand of
conservatism, such as when Cruz quickly agreed this summer with Trump's
new position to end birthright citizenship, despite previous questions
the Texan posed about its constitutionality." (CNN, 12/17/15)
Flip-Flopped on Mass Deportation:
In September 2013, Cruz "noted that he had not called for deportation."
"Cruz also noted that he had not called for deportation or, as
Mitt Romney famously advocated, self-deportation." (The Texas Tribune,
9/13/13)
Now, "over the past few weeks," Cruz "has specifically endorsed deportations after months of resisting."
"Cruz, who over the past few weeks has specifically endorsed
deportations after months of resisting, said in an interview that aired
Sunday on 'State of the Union' that the U.S. should catch those who came
here illegally under normal law enforcement practices, not through
round-ups of the estimated 11 million undocumented people living in the
U.S." (CNN, 1/10/16)
In January 2016, Cruz said that like Donald Trump he does "absolutely" support deportation of all illegal immigrants.
"Ted Cruz said during an appearance in Iowa on Monday that there's
a difference between him and Donald Trump on immigration. The Texas
senator, who is leading the field of Republican presidential candidates
in Iowa according to the latest polls, was asked by a man in the state
if, like Trump, he believed that all undocumented immigrants should be
deported. Cruz replied, 'Absolutely yes.' 'And in fact, look, there's a
difference,' said Cruz. 'He's advocated allowing folks to come back in
and become citizens. I oppose that.'" (BuzzFeed, 1/5/16)
Flip-Flopped on Syria:
Cruz said "we have no dog in the fight" in Syria.
"On Syria, Cruz inveighed against Rubio and Clinton for supporting
a no-fly zone and arming 'the so-called moderate rebels.' 'I think none
of that makes any sense. In my view, we have no dog in the fight of the
Syrian civil war,' he said, arguing that Rubio and Clinton 'are
repeating the very same mistakes they made in Libya. They've
demonstrated they've learned nothing.'" (Bloomberg, 11/30/15)
Union Leader editorial: "This newfound zeal for the fight in Syria is a shift for Cruz."
"This newfound zeal for the fight in Syria is a shift for Cruz. He
spent the past year positioning himself as a fallback option for
supporters of Sen. Rand Paul, arguing repeatedly 'We certainly don't
have a dog in the fight' in Syria. Cruz has been transparently pandering
to Donald Trump, hoping to win his supporters if and when the Trump
bubble finally bursts." (Union Leader Editorial, 12/8/15)
Wall Street Journal Editorial: Cruz's "positions - and opportunism
- don't speak well of his judgment as a potential Commander in Chief."
"Mr. Cruz's Syria and NSA gambits seem intended to signal to Rand
Paul and Donald Trump supporters that he should be their number two
choice. Perhaps it will work as primary politics. But the positions -
and opportunism - don't speak well of his judgment as a potential
Commander in Chief." (The Wall Street Journal, Editorial, 12/2/15)
The Washington Post: "Sounds like" Cruz "has a dog now" in Syria.
1.) Should the U.S. military intervene in Syria? Cruz's past
position: 'We have no dog in the fight of the Syrian civil war.' (Late
November, interview with Bloomberg News). Cruz's current position: Bomb
Syrian territory until the sand glows. ‘We will carpet bomb them into
oblivion,' Cruz said in Iowa this month, speaking about Islamic State
militants in Syria. 'I don't know if sand can glow in the dark, but
we're going to find out.' Which sounds like: He has a dog now. Cruz now
wants the U.S. to attack one major player in Syria's multi-sided civil
war - the Islamic State - while sending arms and aid to another set of
players, the Kurdish militant groups." (The Washington Post, 12/18/15)
Flip-Flopped on Ground Troops in Syria:
Cruz has "changed his position" on using ground troops to defeat ISIS.
"Cruz also changed his position on another component of foreign
policy. On Oct. 31, Cruz also pushed back on the idea of using ground
troops to defeat ISIS. 'What that would take, I believe, is not a few
more American boots on the ground,' Cruz said at the time. But last week
in Washington, D.C., Cruz said in a speech at the Heritage Foundation
that his strategy includes 'using whatever ground troops are
necessary.'" (NBC News, 12/17/15)
Flip-Flopped on Edward Snowden:
The Hill: "Cruz flip-flops on Edward Snowden."
"Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz on Thursday said
National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden is a 'traitor' who should
be 'tried for treason,' shifting away from the praise he expressed for
Snowden in 2013. 'It is now clear that Snowden is a traitor, and he
should be tried for treason,' Cruz said in a statement to The New York
Times. … Cruz struck a different tone when Snowden first went public
with classified details about NSA snooping in 2013." (The Hill, 1/14/16)
Flip-Flopped on Trade:
"The senator also changed his position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership over the summer."
"The senator also changed his position on the Trans-Pacific
Partnership over the summer. Long an advocate for the deal, Cruz veered
to the other side, voted against authorizing the Obama administration to
negotiate its terms and derisively called it 'Obamatrade' recently in
Iowa." (NBC News, 12/17/15)
In April 2015, Cruz co-authored a Wall Street Journal op-ed with Paul Ryan in support of Trade Promotion Authority.
"The United States is making headway on two historic trade
agreements, one with 11 countries on the Pacific Rim and another with
America's friends in Europe. These two agreements alone would mean
greater access to a billion customers for American manufacturers,
farmers and ranchers. But before the U.S. can complete the agreements,
Congress needs to strengthen the country's bargaining position by
establishing trade-promotion authority, also known as TPA, which is an
arrangement between Congress and the president for negotiating and
considering trade agreements. In short, TPA is what U.S. negotiators
need to win a fair deal for the American worker." (Paul Ryan and Ted
Cruz Op-Ed, The Wall Street Journal, 4/21/15)
Flip-Flopped on Ethanol:
Today, running in Iowa, Cruz says he wouldn't sign the same bill he co-sponsored immediately ending the ethanol mandate.
"Calease recalled a bill Cruz sponsored that would end the RFS
immediately. 'If somebody brought a bill like you defended - if you were
president - to alleviate the RFS instead of letting it run through its
course, would you sign that? Similar to the one you co-signed a couple
years ago?' he asked. Cruz, usually self-assured, quick-witted and
policy-fluent, took a long, three-beat pause. The chances of that bill
making it to his desk, he said, would be 'very slim.' But if it did, he
wouldn't support it." (CNN, 1/10/16)
Flip-Flopped over Billions For Crop Insurance Program:
After voting for "$3 billion in crop insurance cuts," Cruz "flipped his vote to side with farming interest."
"With the Iowa caucuses less than two months away, Ted Cruz seemed
to have an epiphany Thursday night on one of the state's - and
agricultural lobby's - biggest issues in Congress. Cruz (R-Texas)
initially voted with fiscal hardliners to retain $3 billion in crop
insurance cuts that were made as part of a budget deal approved in
October. After a visit to the Senate cloakroom, Cruz returned and
flipped his vote to side with farming interests, which ultimately
prevailed. The crop insurance votes were part of a debate on a highway
bill, which Cruz opposed on a final vote, calling it fiscally
irresponsible." (Politico, 12/4/15)
Sen. Pat Roberts told Politico that he reminded Cruz "there was a
little matter that there was a state called Iowa that he might want to
think about."
"What exactly did Sen. Pat Roberts tell Sen. Ted Cruz during that
fateful vote over crop insurance last week? Roberts joked that info
would spontaneously combust if it ever become public - then he opened
up. 'I just told Ted that the panhandle of Texas, they depend on crop
insurance. And if you don't have that, you'll have a disaster bill that
will cost more money... and there was a little matter that there was a
state called Iowa that he might want to think about.' Cruz's explanation
for switching the vote from cutting the insurance to keeping it has
been that he thought he was on a different vote. Roberts said he thought
Cruz had been planning to vote against the crop insurance 'and then he
of course he looks around at who voted that way. But as it turned out
all four contenders [voted for it]. Y'all said I collared somebody; we
had meaningful dialogue.'" (Politico, Huddle, 12/10/15)
Teddy claims to be the only consistent conservative in the GOP primary. What he really is, however, is a consistent hypocrite who has calculated that lying about Marco Rubio is his only option...
Commentators and voters agree, Marco was the big winner last night in Greenville!
A CBS Overnight Poll: 32% Thought Marco Won The Debate."Thirty-two percent of these debate watchers say Marco Rubio won the
debate, beating out Donald Trump (24%) and John Kasich (19%), who are
ranked second and third, respectively. Further down on the list are Ted
Cruz (12%), Ben Carson (8%), and Jeb Bush (5%). Marco Rubio is the clear
favorite among Republicans."
National Review: Marco 'delivered a solid showing' and 'spoke
competently of the national-security challenges.'"If Trump's clash with
Bush proved to be the pivotal moment of the evening, all eyes had been
on Rubio as the night began. ... He delivered a solid showing in
Greenville: He dumped the talking points for which Chris Christie had
pilloried him and spoke competently of the national-security challenges
the next president will face. ... Rubio also demonstrated in a testy
exchange with rival Ted Cruz that he can throw a punch. ... That was
likely true tonight, where Rubio's solid performance was overshadowed by
Trump's antics, and where Trump's antics were likely enough to make
voters forget about Rubio's big fumble. But all will have to do more -
Trump to hurt himself, Rubio and Bush to help themselves - between now
and next Saturday to appreciably change the dynamics of the race."
New York Post's John Podhoretz: Marco Was 'Sensational.'"And
Marco Rubio? He was sensational. Did what he had to do. Got off the mat
and got himself back in the fight. Winner on points."
The Weekly Standard: 'Rubio's Stellar Performance.'"Rubio seemed
to bounce back with strong, informed answers on national security and
taxes...It's hard to say how Rubio's stellar performance will help him
in South Carolina, which holds its primary this coming Saturday."
PJ Media: 'Basically, this was Marco's night.'"It remained for
Rubio to make the strongest defense of Bush's brother against Trump's
attacks, when the Florida senator said he thanked God that George W.,
not Al Gore, was in the White House on 9/11. The applause was
resounding, as it was after Rubio's impassioned final speech. The camera
at that point had moved over to Cruz, who clearly had the displeased
expression of someone who just saw his victim get up off the mat.
Basically, this was Marco's night."
Politico Insiders Agree: 'Rubio Won The Night.'"Meantime, a
plurality of Republican insiders - 44 percent - said Marco Rubio won the
night. Slightly more than one-third of Democrats agreed…'Rubio is back.
Rubio is back. Rubio is back,' said a South Carolina Republican of
Rubio, who last week was criticized for repeating the same lines. 'He
dismantled Cruz without getting too entangled with Trump. If South
Carolina voters were paying attention tonight, this could be a huge
boost for him.'"
Tampa Bay Times: Marco had a 'strong debate performance. He won
lines, seized opportunities.'"Marco Rubio, the youngest presidential
candidate, invigorated his campaign Saturday night with a strong debate
performance. He won lines, seized opportunities. Rubio was his usual
debate self."
Cruz needed to think of Trump's behavior as Highlander, not
Fonzie. There can be only One. Trump won't relinquish his hold on the
lead, it has to be taken from him. The irony of the hated "moderate" Jeb
Bush being the only candidate putting real money behind ads hitting
Trump (far too little, far too late, and featuring an idiotic detour
attacking Marco Rubio), is rich. Cruz has the resources and the
conservative pedigree to bring a case against Trump, but his political
calculus has been so wrong for so long that he merely delayed the
Donald's strike against him.
When the strike came, the Trump Troll Party went into overdrive against Cruz. Ted Cruz, a man who
checked every box on their agenda (and was perfectly acceptable as long
as his lips were planted firmly on Trump's posterior) was suddenly
anathema. Cruz made a political category error in assessing the Trump
supporters he so coveted; he thought they were driven by the talk-radio
and fever-swamp media complex and a hatred of the Establishment alone.
He was wrong; they're also driven by their desire to be part of Trump's
personality cult. If there's one thing no one will ever mistake Ted Cruz
for, it's a charismatic cult leader. Cruz scans more as the accountant
for the charismatic cult leader than the guy ladling out the Kool Aid.
Cruz
also believed that the weaponized purity-posse of Breitbart "News" and
the rest of the birther-truther-ScamPAC rage-driven infrastructure that
feeds off the credulous and the cretinous, would never turn on him.
He
should have been paying attention; many of these outlets have stopped
being about advancing conservatism or serving as a counterweight to
liberal media. They're about monetizing fury, even if it means
marginalizing candidates and messages that could make it possible to
achieve a governing conservative majority and retake the White House.
They've advocated for the last six months that all candidates not named
Donald Trump must be destroyed. Not for ideological or political
reasons, but because no one else brings in those sweet clicks, that ad
revenue, and that ROI on the ScamPAC email lists...
This video of Chris Christie talking to the editorial board of the Des Moines Register is absolutely disgraceful.
First,
Christie boasts that he is proud to have signed a billthat deprives
New Jerseyans who end up on the "terror watch list" of their Second
Amendment rights. And then - as casually as can be - he concedes that
there are no due process protections for those who have been affected.
Worse,
Christie demonstrates that he "understands" how widespread the problems
with the systems are, but indicates that he doesn't especially care.
Having cited the bizarre case of Fox's Stephen Hayes, Christie admits
that "from what I understand, it is a very, very difficult thing to be
able to work your way off of it." It should, he suggests, be "easier."
And
yet, when asked whether he thinks his endorsement of the bill was a
mistake, Christie flatly says "no." Of course there will be people who
are unfairly punished, he proposes. But that that is not a good reason
to limit the government's power.
Naturally, I disagree - and
strongly. We are talking here, remember, about an enumerated
constitutional right. In fact, we are talking about two enumerated
constitutional rights: the right to due process and the right to keep
and bear arms.
If Chris Christie believes that the unfounded suspicions
of the executive branch should trump those protections, that is his
prerogative. But those voting in the upcoming primaries should think
long and hard about whether they agree with him.
Do we really want to put a man with this attitude in the Oval Office of the White House?
Christie was just getting warmed up. "Secondly, I never wrote a
check to Planned Parenthood," he continued. Did he make his donation
with cash or by credit card, then? Bob Ingle's Chris Christie: The Inside Story of His Rise to Power (2012), quotes him declaring in a 1994
race for Morris County freeholder that he supports "Planned Parenthood
with my personal contribution."
In response to the question, Christie said: "Well I never donated to Planned Parenthood, so that's wrong."
"So, just on the Planned Parenthood," Dickerson pressed. "Never donated, never supported?"
"No. No," Christie said.
However, the governor's statement doesn't fit with what he had to say in 1994 while a candidate for county office.
"I
support Planned Parenthood privately with my personal contribution and
that should be the goal of any such agency, to find private donations,"
Christie was quoted saying in The Star-Ledger on Sept. 30, 1994. "It's
also no secret that I am pro-choice."
Want to know why so many European countries have managed to keep their marginal income tax rates lower than ours while still collecting far more revenue to fund far bigger government than we have? Because they levy value-added taxes (VATs), which are national sales taxes that don't show up on a retail bill but are instead hidden from consumers in intermediate stages.
Both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have aVAT-like mechanism as part of their tax-reform plans. Both are misguided, to say the least. Even if they were able to get their plans enacted intact in the short run, in the long run what we'd end up with is a new, costly federal sales tax plus a continuing, problematic income tax. In other words, we'd end up like much of Europe...
Marco was asked Sunday morning on Face the Nation about Ted Cruz's unclear views on immigration. He pointed out that it's not just immigration where Cruz has told voters one thing and then done another:
There are multiple issues on which he's tried to do these sorts of things. For example, when the free trade agreement was up, he wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, he wrote it with Paul Ryan. And just three days later, he flipped on it, after I don't know why - he got some pressure on the fast track authority. He's done it on votes on farm issues. In fact, changed his vote on the floor of the Senate.
So there is always some of that, because new facts are presented. But I think my concern is the voters: If you're going to attack someone on a policy issue, you need to be clear where you stand on the issue, and where you stood in the past...
I think when you spend your whole time telling people you are a clear talker and you say what you mean, and everyone else is a sellout, but you're the only purist, I think it is fair to say hold on a second. Here is where you have been in the past on some issues, and here is where you are now. The truth is everyone running on the Republican side supports strong, conservative positions.
