Posted on 04/23/2015 12:04:19 PM PDT by VinL
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz took to the Senate floor on Thursday to urge his Republican colleagues to vote against attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch.
When the final confirmation vote came a few hours later, Cruz — a candidate for the 2016 presidential nomination— skipped the vote.
Cruz’s communications direction Amanda Carpenter did not provide a reason for the senator’s absence but said in an emailed statement that his “opposition to the nomination has been clear,” noting that earlier in the day he had voted to filibuster her nomination. That key procedural vote ended up passing, clearing the way to her eventual confirmation.
“He voted against her in committee and opposed cloture. That is why he spoke on the floor about it, has given numerous interviews, and written an op-ed the topic. Once cloture was invoked it was clear she would be confirmed and Cruz strongly chastised his Republican colleagues who supported her.”
Carpenter added that his vote against cloture was “the only vote that mattered.”
“After that it was done deal,” she said.
Cruz had opposed Lynch’s confirmation on the grounds that she, like outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder, would continue to support President Obama’s executive action on immigration.
“The Republican majority, if it so chose, could defeat this nomination, but the Republican majority has chosen to go forward and allow Loretta Lynch to be confirmed,” Cruz said on the Senate floor. “I would note there are more than a few voters back home that are asking what exactly is the difference between a Democratic and Republican majority when the exact same individual gets confirmed as Attorney General, promising the exact same lawlessness, what’s the difference?”
I don’t disagree ... in theory. But it’s the old ‘I voted against it before I voted for it’ BS we hear. But in this case, I voted against it before I didn’t bother to show up and vote at all.
Yes it’s optics. BUT..IMO....presidential politics IS about optics as well as policy statements....etc.
It’s why I don’t particularly like it when a politician says one thing in public and another thing to donors. Or one thing in English and something else entirely in another language.
Optics and trust ... are important considerations for me when it come to choosing a candidate.
What’s the point of showing up to vote if you vote makes not one bit of difference in any given outcome?
I think a lot of voters, including me, have been asking themselves this question recently, and I imagine Ted has too.
If I was a member of a group, the senate, whose sole purpose seems to be destroying my country, I don’t think I want to do anything with them either.
I think Sen. Cruz should have been there for the vote, and that he should have cast a vote.
“The Republican majority, if it so chose, could defeat this nomination, but the Republican majority has chosen to go forward and allow Loretta Lynch to be confirmed,” Cruz said on the Senate floor.”
Good representation.
f I was a member of a group, the senate, whose sole purpose seems to be destroying my country, I don’t think I want to do anything with them either.
***********
I would have no way of knowing, but I think that was his reason- he did not want to be a part of the charade.
Then he shouldn’t be surprised when voters stay home in droves because “it won’t make any difference”.
My money and time still go to Cruz before the primary election.
I don't care about words. I care about what gets things done.
/johnny
That’s the Cloture Motion
Yeah. I kind of feel like if I went anywhere near the senate, I’d want to take a bleach bath with steel wool.
But I’m not sure that would get the icky off.
What is a concern to me is why anyone in the senate would vote to confirm this person. That is where the problem lies.
You’re right, that list are those who voted yes before they voted no. Yes to cloture to move the nomination to the floor, then they voted no on the nomination as a fig leaf.
seems like a non-issue to me.
Correct, the vote that mattered. Broke the filibuster.
And it would seem there are more of you than there are of us, unfortunately. Which means that, once again, the establishment candidate will get the nod, and the GOP will lose again, because people like me will vote 3rd party.
I would not have shown either if I knew the vote was a done deal. I cannot stomach kabuki theater. Alamo and Gonzales were not a theater of lies and corruption.
So what? The choice is between Lynch getting in and Holder’s continuation. A distinction without a difference. Sadly, voting or not voting makes no difference.
A senator's job is to be in the Senate to work and to vote. Most Freepers would not ordinarily approve of politicians not doing their job.
I trust Ted Cruz to follow the constitution. I have not observed him caving tp popular opinion on anything and I don’t think you will see Cruz enriching himself while in office. There are a couple of Republcan candidates that you can say the same thing about, but none that I trust as much.
Must See TV >>> Sen. Ted Cruz Urges Colleagues to Oppose the Loretta Lynch Nomination
I've never been more proud of Ted Cruz, my fellow Texan, in the manner he delivered the case against Obama, Holder, and Lynch in this speech.
I agree it would have been nice, for completeness sake at least, for him to cast that final vote to make it absolutely official. But he is running for President.
He probably has other things he could be and was doing that would be more important and productive than voting in a sham vote.
It’s a push at worst, IMO. At best it shows (to me at least) he knows how to use his time efficiently.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.