Sen. Ted Cruz Makes It Official

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Slight problem, PO.... This is about the TPA, not TPP. All these acronyms are confusing, but today's cloture vote (which Cruz put out a statement against and then voted against) was for the TPA, not TPP. Yes, he's said he's unsure about the TPP, but he was all for the TPA seven business days ago.

6/12/15
Does Senator Ted Cruz support TPA?
Yes. Senator Cruz voted in favor of TPA earlier this year because it breaks the logjam that is preventing the U.S. from entering into trade deals that are good for American workers, American businesses, and our economy. Ronald Reagan emphatically supported free trade, and Senator Cruz does as well. He ran for Senate promising to support free trade, and he is honoring that commitment to the voters.

Two things allegedly were changed within the past seven business days and he was "given no choice but to vote against it," (his words) since McConnell didn't meet his demands.

I was stating the difference between the two, as the TPA is the "process" that allows for the trade agreement to be negotiated.

As Ted Cruz has stated, "Since the Senate first voted on TPA, there have been two material changes."

Obviously, several things had changed after the first vote and he backed away. I am clarifying that the TPA is not the trade bill, it's just the process to allow negotiation. He isn't good with the details changed and is backing away from the fast track.

I really don't see what you are up in arms about. It looks pretty elementary to me.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I was stating the difference between the two, as the TPA is the "process" that allows for the trade agreement to be negotiated.

Correct. He hasn't taken a position on TPP yet, but up 'til this morning he was all for TPA.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

As Ted Cruz has stated, "Since the Senate first voted on TPA, there have been two material changes."

Obviously, several things had changed after the first vote and he backed away. I am clarifying that the TPA is not the trade bill, it's just the process to allow negotiation. He isn't good with the details changed and is backing away from the fast track.

Odd, because I don't believe the Senate has voted on the TPA between June 12th and today. IIRC, the House voted the TAA down the second week of June, but the Senate hasn't voted on the TPA in the past seven business days since he declared his support for it.

Again, he's free to change his mind, I just think it's odd he did so the morning of the cloture vote and just seven business days after stating support for it.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I really don't see what you are up in arms about. It looks pretty elementary to me.

He put out a statement blasting the bill as a bad bill. In the same statement he declares he'd still vote for the bill (the bad bill he just blasted), unless forced to vote against it due to McConnell not bowing to his demands.

That doesn't bother you?

Maybe this example would help. Suppose this wasn't about TPA, but about obamacare back when it was being voted. And Senator Cruz puts out a statement blasting obamacare and how bad a bill it is. But in the same statement he says he will be forced to vote against it unless Reid bows to his demands for an amendment restricting illegals from obtaining obamacare and some kind of public statement that another bill should be allowed to expire.

Would that bother you?

If it's a bad bill, there shouldn't be a question of voting against it. If it's a bad bill, he shouldn't be trying to negotiate a deal in exchange for a Yes vote.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Correct. He hasn't taken a position on TPP yet, but up 'til this morning he was all for TPA.


Odd, because I don't believe the Senate has voted on the TPA between June 12th and today. IIRC, the House voted the TAA down the second week of June, but the Senate hasn't voted on the TPA in the past seven business days since he declared his support for it.

Again, he's free to change his mind, I just think it's odd he did so the morning of the cloture vote and just seven business days after stating support for it.


He put out a statement blasting the bill as a bad bill. In the same statement he declares he'd still vote for the bill (the bad bill he just blasted), unless forced to vote against it due to McConnell not bowing to his demands.

That doesn't bother you?

Maybe this example would help. Suppose this wasn't about TPA, but about obamacare back when it was being voted. And Senator Cruz puts out a statement blasting obamacare and how bad a bill it is. But in the same statement he says he will be forced to vote against it unless Reid bows to his demands for an amendment restricting illegals from obtaining obamacare and some kind of public statement that another bill should be allowed to expire.

Would that bother you?

If it's a bad bill, there shouldn't be a question of voting against it. If it's a bad bill, he shouldn't be trying to negotiate a deal in exchange for a Yes vote.

FIRST VOTE ON TPA - May 12, 2015

Please, you are giving me a headache today.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

FIRST VOTE ON TPA - May 12, 2015

Please, you are giving me a headache today.

Sorry, don't mean to give you a headache, honestly.

I found what I was looking for.

Cruz says there were two material changes made since May 12th. They're not really changes made to the bill, just additional knowledge about what's included in the bill. The first was the revelation of the TiSA documents. The second is the deal to keep the Ex-Im Bank.

June 10th, the TiSA text was leaked.

June 12th, Cruz made a statement supporting TPA.

June 21st, McConnell made a deal for the Ex-Im Bank vote

June 23rd, Cruz released a statement against the TPA.

I'll give Cruz the benefit of the doubt that he may not have read the TiSA text in the day or so it was released before his statement of support.

But I continue to question why he would try to barter his vote in exchange for an amendment and a non-binding public statement on the Ex-Im Bank.

Again, this is a bad bill. He knows it's a bad bill. He put out a statement on how bad a bill it is. And yet he said he'd only vote against it if "forced" to do so.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Sorry, don't mean to give you a headache, honestly.

I found what I was looking for.

Cruz says there were two material changes made since May 12th. They're not really changes made to the bill, just additional knowledge about what's included in the bill. The first was the revelation of the TiSA documents. The second is the deal to keep the Ex-Im Bank.

June 10th, the TiSA text was leaked.

June 12th, Cruz made a statement supporting TPA.

June 21st, McConnell made a deal for the Ex-Im Bank vote

June 23rd, Cruz released a statement against the TPA.

I'll give Cruz the benefit of the doubt that he may not have read the TiSA text in the day or so it was released before his statement of support.

But I continue to question why he would try to barter his vote in exchange for an amendment and a non-binding public statement on the Ex-Im Bank.

Again, this is a bad bill. He knows it's a bad bill. He put out a statement on how bad a bill it is. And yet he said he'd only vote against it if "forced" to do so.

He believes in free trade and wants to get a good bill on it. What's the big deal? He is on the campaign trail. Of course, he is not going to make a statement every few hours and it takes time to iron out what is true and what is not.

The Ex-Im Bank is a big deal. He does need to barter, along with immigration. We are going to have free trade, we need to negotiate on it as much as possible.

I agree with Cruz when asked about working with the Congress - "My attitude is the same as Reagan. What do you do when someone offers you half a loaf? You take it. Then you come back for more."

Donald Trump said something about trade that I agree with, that we need to negotiate with "each" country separately. I like that idea, because not all countries act the same.

[Pressing-On]

Ted Cruz interviews with Mark Levin about supporting TPA and then voting against it.

Saw it as a vehicle for freer trade, but then the backroom deals came in.

"When the Senate, initially, took it up, I voted in favor of TPA. Now, not TPP, that hasn't been voted on. I haven't taken a position on it. It is still being negotiated. As you know, TPA is 'fast-track', the process to get trade agreements negotiated. And I, initially, voted in favor of it, and publicly spoke out in favor of it because of the last 80 years, you've seen the only way that a President has been able to get free trade agreements negotiated is with 'fast-track'. And, virtually, every President since FDR has had 'fast-track'.

And I informed leadership, that if they publicly no. 1, committed to allowing the Ex-Im Bank to expire and stay expired, end the corrupt, cronyism deal making, and no. 2, if Congress would pass the Cruz-Session Amendment, and that's taking Immigration off the table forever in trade agreement, that I would support it. But, later, leadership did not accept my offer."

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

He believes in free trade and wants to get a good bill on it. What's the big deal? He is on the campaign trail. Of course, he is not going to make a statement every few hours and it takes time to iron out what is true and what is not.

The big deal is that he blasts the bill as a bad bill, then says he'd only voted against it if forced to. Why would anyone vote for something which they believe to be a bad deal.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The Ex-Im Bank is a big deal. He does need to barter, along with immigration. We are going to have free trade, we need to negotiate on it as much as possible.

I disagree. I don't believe a vote on an important issue like this should be subject to deals and bartering. That's how obamacare was passed. This is no different than obamacare's Louisiana purchase.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I agree with Cruz when asked about working with the Congress - "My attitude is the same as Reagan. What do you do when someone offers you half a loaf? You take it. Then you come back for more."

The problem is this loaf is moldy and rotten inside. I guess you and Cruz then believe that a bad bill is better than no bill. I don't. A bad bill is a bad bill. No bill is better than a bad bill, IMO.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

The big deal is that he blasts the bill as a bad bill, then says he'd only voted against it if forced to. Why would anyone vote for something which they believe to be a bad deal.


I disagree. I don't believe a vote on an important issue like this should be subject to deals and bartering. That's how obamacare was passed. This is no different than obamacare's Louisiana purchase.


The problem is this loaf is moldy and rotten inside. I guess you and Cruz then believe that a bad bill is better than no bill. I don't. A bad bill is a bad bill. No bill is better than a bad bill, IMO.

David, Did you understand the point that for the last 80 years, Presidents have needed fast-track to get free trade agreements negotiated? That is what he supported - period.

He said that this Administration changed how fast-track normally works and that is what he was against. You can't deny that Obama has changed a lot of ways we do business in Washington, can you?

[Pressing-On]

BTW, David, Why aren't you hammering Marco Rubio who voted FOR the bad deals that were added. He was the deciding win vote of 60.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

David, Did you understand the point that for the last 80 years, Presidents have needed fast-track to get free trade agreements negotiated? That is what he supported - period.

He said that this Administration changed how fast-track normally works and that is what he was against. You can't deny that Obama has changed a lot of ways we do business in Washington, can you?

I don't deny things have drastically changed in DC. And I understand he supports free trade. But this bill is about more than just free trade. It's fine to support free trade, but if it comes at the cost of this bill...better to vote against this bad bill and try for a better bill.