Who is the most conservative Republican candidate for president? [CRUZ!]

Washington Post ^ | June 16 at 2:00 PM | Pablo Barberá

[EQAndyBuzz]

“And Cruz has made it clear that he is withholding judgment on the TPP until it negotiations have been completed before he decides whether he will vote for it or not.”

Right. TPA gets approved and TPP and subsequent trade legislation will still be reviewed by Congress and the Senate and it will get killed there by Republicans.

The only reason I can think that people here no longer like Cruz is because he is approving a vote on giving a “Democrat” the power to create trade legislation.

There is no reason to worry here. Cruz will always do what is right for America. That’s how he is wired. The fog of war on this legislation has muddied the waters so much and due to its secrecy everyone is speculating.

[knarf]

I listened to that interview and I concluded ... Cruz may be entirely correct, but IMO ... Americans are looking for a fighter and if in fact the vote wasn't that important in the first place ... one might wonder why Cruz would vote for it when it didn't matter anyway ...... and especially when Cruz should be making people points ... not political ones.

SOME votes should be symbolic.

[SoConPubbie]

I think we should be more concerned about AMERICAN than conservative.

Sorry, but you could not be more wrong.

Being concerned about things from a conservative perspective IS being concerned about things from an AMERICAN perspective.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Looking forward to the general election I would theorize that the only three with a chance to beat Hillary are Cruz, Trump and maybe Perry. The rest will go down to Hillary in a general election.

[RightOnTheBorder]

It is my understanding that TPA allows trade agreements to be approved on a 51 vote basis rather than a 60, and no amendments allowed. Given who who we have as president I have absolute faith that trade agreements will be against the interests of our country. Given who we have in the Senate I have absolute faith they can muster 51 to give Obama what he wants.

Cruz is still my candidate but I think he is wrong to believe that TPA will do more good than harm. Apparently I am more cynical about his peers than he, but I think I am right.

[upchuck]

Maybe this will shed some light?

Op-ed: Hatch should fix H1-B visa program instead of expand it

From that article:

How do corporations benefit from this? Major savings: Many of the workers laid off at Disney and SCE earned $100,000 a year or more. Government data indicate the H-1B workers replacing them earn around $60,000.

[Principled]

You are right - it’s the trade deal that’s the problem.

BUT...

we can’t see it AND tpa would allow the trade deal thru without inspection and only an up or down vote... i do not trust these weasels and nobody does hence the outcry. Say whatever about 60 days but I do not believe them, not one bit. And what recourse is there should they fail to make public the deal?

it should be 2/3 of the senate that approves treaties... which some say this is... but we don’t know b/c they won’t show us.

They’re trying to go too fast. Like TARP. Gotta do it now, Now, NOW!!!

to cool everyone’s jets we need to slow it down and show the public the deal.

they have really screwed up lying to us so much that we refuse to believe them.

[knarf]

I agree, but most voters are not reading FR or listening to Conservative talk ...

They ARE being hammered with the word "conservative" and being led to aligning that with non American

If a news item was between American and Democrat ... I think the public would begin to mature their thought processes

[Principled]

...due to its secrecy everyone is speculating.

Can you blame them? So many lies all the time... and no consequences. It's just plain common sense that when there are no consequences for lying, it does not abate. Indeed in cases where lying gives great monetary rewards, the lack of consequences ensures lying to increase.

WE. DON'T. BELIEVE. POLS.

[SoConPubbie]

From that article:

How do corporations benefit from this? Major savings: Many of the workers laid off at Disney and SCE earned $100,000 a year or more. Government data indicate the H-1B workers replacing them earn around $60,000.

There were approximately 1000 U.S. workers affected by those occurrences. I have, as yet, to see any other verifiable proof that any other corporation have been abusing the H1-B process. While this is deplorable, it does not provide a satisfactory level of proof that Corporate America is abusing the H1-B process and stealing jobs from America.

Is it wrong? Absolutely!

Should it be fixed so that these relatively rare occurrences don't happen again, of course!

Does it prove that Ted Cruz's position on H1-Bs is incorrect or ill-advised. Absolutely not!

[SoConPubbie]

Then you are talking about a change of messaging, right?

If so, you maybe right!

[SoConPubbie]

we can’t see it AND tpa would allow the trade deal thru without inspection and only an up or down vote... i do not trust these weasels and nobody does hence the outcry. Say whatever about 60 days but I do not believe them, not one bit. And what recourse is there should they fail to make public the deal?

Myth 5: TPP is being negotiated via a dangerous and unprecedented level of secrecy!

Totally false. Probably the most-repeated myth right now isn’t even related to TPA but instead to the TPP, which is still being negotiated. According to the anti-TPA script, the TPP is so secret that nobody knows what’s in it, and—much like Obamacare legislation—nobody, not even Congress, will know what’s in it until the agreement is passed into law. Once again, however, nothing could be further from the truth:

• First, Obama’s USTR and Congress have been consulting on the TPP since December 14, 2009, when then-USTR Kirk notified Congress that President Obama intended to enter into TPP negotiations. USTR then held initial consultations with Congress in 2010 and, according to a January 2015 fact-sheet, has since held almost 1,700 congressional briefings on TPP alone. USTR also previewed various TPP proposals with key congressional committees before taking them to our trading partners. (Odd that the TPP talks have been going on for six years, but the vast majority of these “secrecy” complaints have only emerged in the last few months, huh?)
• Second, USTR has provided “access to the full negotiating texts for any Member of Congress, including for Members to view at their convenience in the Capitol, accompanied by staff members with appropriate security clearance.” This access began in 2012, and several House members and senators—both supportive of TPA (like Mike Lee) and opposed (like Sens. Jeff Sessions and Elizabeth Warren, as well as Rep. Rosa DeLauro)—have reviewed the draft negotiating texts. Moreover, the level of security surrounding these TPP texts isn’t part of some scary Obama administration plot; it’s set by Congress (which, as you’ll recall, is controlled by Republicans these days). A U.S. government official confirmed to me that “the Senate and House security offices determine the procedures for viewing classified material in the Capitol reading room where the TPP text is kept for Members—not the administration… some people claim that it’s more difficult to view military or intelligence information, but it’s all subject to the same rules that are set and enforced by Capitol security.”
• Third, USTR has engaged the public on the TPP via published reports and “stakeholder meetings” with groups like labor unions, consumer groups, and, of course, corporations and trade associations. Some of these stakeholders have even reviewed the negotiating texts and US proposals. Admittedly, the official texts aren’t available to the general public, but this is common practice for all FTAs (as a quick Google search reveals) and for good reason: just like other high-value negotiations among private parties or governments, revealing draft proposals before a deal is struck emboldens the opposition, undermines the parties’ negotiating positions, and exposes negotiators to public scrutiny over provisions that might not even be in a final deal. Publishing draft FTA texts would make completing a deal difficult, if not impossible, and it’s thus no coincidence the most vocal advocates for “full transparency” in free trade negotiations are actually those most opposed to free trade.It’s also important to understand just how unoriginal this “secrecy” canard is:
  

  Today's history lesson: Nutty ol' Perot on NAFTA's scary secrecy. Sound familiar? #TPP #TPA https://t.co/YLjlJfusUr pic.twitter.com/l1LGWPftzV
  
  — Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome) June 5, 2015

Yes, protectionists have been using the same “secrecy” lines for over 20 years. In fact, if you replaced “NAFTA” with “TPP” in those old Ross Perot commercials, they’d be almost indistinguishable from the ones on our TVs today.

• Finally, unlike the oft-analogized Obamacare legislation, the actual text of any final TPP deal will be required by law to be publicly available (online) for months—yes, months—before Congress votes on it. As you can see from the table below (source), under TPA the president must make the entire text of any trade agreement, including TPP, available to the public for 60 days before he can even sign it.Once it’s signed, Congress will have weeks, maybe months, to scour the deal, hold “mock markups” in various committees, and suggest changes to the agreement before the president sends Congress legislation implementing the FTA for a final vote. Also, within 105 days of the FTA’s signing, the U.S. International Trade Commission must issue a report on the deal’s economic impact—again prior those bills being submitted to Congress. And once the bills finally are submitted, Congress will then have up to 90 legislative days (which is like five months in normal human days) to review the bills and hold final votes.

Bottom line: when or if TPA is passed, the general public will have months—and if the presidential elections interfere, maybe years—to review the TPP before Congress acts on it. Think that’s crazy? Well, it’s precisely what happened to U.S. FTAs with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, which were signed by President Bush but sat around (online) for years before they were submitted to, and passed by, Congress in 2011.

[Principled]

I am about exactly in the same place. Cruz is my candidate but don’t know [yet] why he would allow himself to be caught appearing to be OK giving 0bama this power.

[SoConPubbie]

It is my understanding that TPA allows trade agreements to be approved on a 51 vote basis rather than a 60, and no amendments allowed.

TPA has been around since at least 1974 and it has never allowed amendments.

You are being played.

[right way right]

“There is no reason to worry here. Cruz will always do what is right for America. That’s how he is wired. The fog of war on this legislation has muddied the waters so much and due to its secrecy everyone is speculating.”

If they dig a little and think before speculation they find Cruz is simply for free trade and he would like to do it right.

The alternative is a volatile nut like Trump who thinks he can just hold the world hostage.

[Zathras]

I am a BIG Cruz supporter and still am.
He is falling for the Chamber of Commerce on H1b.
I suspect he is trying to mend fences with GOP leaders.

I’d really like to have him meet some FR engineers like myself who have been forced out by H1b.
I could get him to change his mind in 15 min.

[TexasCajun]

I don't want to hear Cruz later say he voted NO on TPP after voting Yes on TPA.

I equate this with Conservatives passing bills out of committee, then voting against the bill on the floor, claiming not their fault for the bill's passage.

I'm still on-board, just hiding & watching.

I like Walker but I want to know more about pro-life Carly Fiorina.

Cruz / Fiornia ...sure to steal Hillary's "time for a woman" thunder. Handling herself very well so far.

[kidd]

Elizabeth Warren is too left for leftists...ok

WaPo is in the center of the average Twitter user...ok

But Rush Limbaugh is in line with the average republican congresscritter?...no way

[caww]

I personally do not want to see a woman at the helm given the state of our country and the Internal stage as it is. ..no matter what they stand for...none of them come close to being a Margret Thatcher.

[LambSlave]

We’ll see who can passionately and convincingly articulate constitutional conservative values.

Words are cheap, and promises broken after elections... why not just look at their actual legislative/voting records and actions (for governors) to see who is conservative? Far more meaningful in my opinion.