Archive for the ‘Mitt Romney’ Category

This week’s events have produced a multitude of winners and some distinct losers. Let’s start with the losers.

Mitt Romney- Mitt Romney sided with Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi when he voted to convict President Trump on Impeachment Article 1. Mitt’s constituents in Utah want him censured.
Nancy Pelosi- In a planned attack, Pelosi ripped up her personal copy of President Trump’s SOTU Address. In ripping up her copy, Pelosi played into President Trump’s hand by looking like a petulant school child. Here’s the scene:

Iowa Democratic Party- We’re almost a week removed from the Iowa Caucuses and we still don’t know who won the Caucuses. The chairman of the party apologized on Tuesday. The chairman of the DNC called for a recanvas of the results. That’s the personification of humiliation.
Biden, Klobuchar and Warren- This trio is essentially a trio of zombie candidates. Biden isn’t attracting any positive attention. What he’s missing in positive attention, he’s making up for in negative attention. According to her allies, Klobuchar keeps gaining ground on the leaders. Unfortunately, she finished in 5th place in Iowa and looks likely to repeat that performance in New Hampshire. Back-to-back 5th place finishes will seal Sen. Klobuchar’s fate. Warren finished third in Iowa, which is decent enough but she’s got race relations problems. Stick a fork in her. She’s finished.

Winners
Mitch McConnell- Despite what CNN, MSDNC and the Washington Post say, he’s the true DC master tactician. Pelosi isn’t the master tactician.
Devin Nunes- The Democrats’ impeachment trial showed that Devin Nunes got virtually everything right on the FBI scandal and with FISA abuse. Everything he got right, Schiff got wrong. Literally.
Iain Lanphier and Charles McGee- Iain was mentioned in President Trump’s State of the Union Address this way:

Iain has always dreamed of going to space. He was the first in his class and among the youngest at an aviation academy. He aspires to go to the Air Force Academy and then he has his eye on the Space Force. As Iain says, “Most people look up at space. I want to look down on the world.”

President Trump then told the rest of the story:

But sitting behind Iain tonight is his greatest hero of them all, Charles McGee, who was born in Cleveland Ohio, one century ago. Charles is one of the last surviving Tuskegee airman, the first black fighter pilots and he also happens to be Ian’s great grandfather. On December 7th Charles celebrated his 100th birthday. A few weeks ago, I signed a bill promoting Charles McGee to Brigadier General. And earlier today I pinned the stars on his shoulders in the Oval Office. General McGee, our nation salutes you. Thank you sir.

That’s what I call a history lesson!
Jenaya Davis- “The next step forward and building an inclusive society is making sure that every young American gets a great education and the opportunity to achieve the American dream. Yet, for too long, countless American children have been trapped in failing government schools. To rescue these students 18 States have created school choice in the form of opportunity scholarships. The programs are so popular that tens of thousands of students remain on a waiting list. One of those students is Jenaya Davis, a fourth grader from Philadelphia, Jenaya. Jenaya’s mom Stephanie is a single parent. She would do anything to give her daughter a better future, but last year that future was put further out of reach when Pennsylvania’s governor vetoed legislation to expand school choice to 50,000 children. Jenaya and Stephanie are in the gallery. Stephanie, thank you so much for being here with your beautiful daughter. Thank you very much. But Jenaya I have some good news for you because I am pleased to inform you that your long wait is over. I can proudly announced tonight that an opportunity scholarship has become available. It’s going to you and you will soon be heading to the school of your choice. Now I call on Congress to give one million American children the same opportunity, Jenaya has just received. Pass the Education Freedom Scholarships and Opportunity Act because no parents should be forced to send their child to a failing government school.”

President Trump reminded the politicians in the House chamber what it’s all about when he said “Members of Congress we must never forget that the only victories that matter in Washington are victories that deliver for the American people.”

Delivering for the American people has become President Trump’s legacy. That’s what makes him this week’s biggest winner. Despite all of the unrighteous fights he’s had to fight, despite all of the criticism he’s taken, despite the lies that’ve gotten told about him (Think Adam Schiff’s parody), President Trump kept his eyes on what’s important. He’s rebuilt the military. He’s killed the nastiest of terrorists. He’s built the strongest economy. He’s put young people like Iain and Jenaya first.

That’s the definition of a winner. He isn’t perfect but his priorities are fantastic.

In this unserious op-ed, David Axelrod complained that “For all the righteous indignation about the outcome of Wednesday’s vote, I understand the reluctance of any senator to convict an elected president and forever ban them from the ballot. And if Donald Trump truly were “chastened” by impeachment, as several of the Republican senators who voted against removing him argued, it might have made their “let the people decide” argument more compelling.”

Democrats and some swampy Republicans aren’t the brightest people. President Trump wasn’t convicted because he shouldn’t have ever gotten impeached. The process in the House will forever be part of Nancy Pelosi’s, Adam Schiff’s and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Jerry Nadler’s tarnished legacies. Let’s remember what happened in the House. Let’s start with the most disgusting part first.

Impeachment Article 2 is the product of an infantile temper tantrum. On Sept. 24, Nancy Pelosi announced that the House was starting an official impeachment inquiry. That’s a bald-faced lie. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution says “The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” It gives impeachment authority to “the House of Representatives” alone, not to the speaker, not to a committee. Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton didn’t want that authority resting in the hands of a Representative or a committee of representatives. They wanted everyone to share in the accountability.

When Democrats sent out the first set of what Democrats called “compulsory subpoenas”, the House hadn’t voted to authorize any committee to initiate an impeachment inquiry. In fact, the White House Counsel’s letter to House Democrats was sent 3 weeks before the vote authorizing impeachment. Ignoring long-settled precedent, which apparently is his specialty, Adam Schiff said that any delay in complying with the subpoenas would be considered an impeachable offense. The judiciary is there to settle privilege disputes between the legislative and executive branches.

Apparently, Mr. Schiff thinks that he’s the exception to that ruling. He’s wrong about that. He isn’t the exception. Patrick Philbin laid out this reasoning in response to a question.

As for Impeachment Article 1, Abuse of Power, no high crime was alleged. In fact, no crime was alleged. What’s worse, most of the testimony provided to Mr. Schiff’s committee wasn’t provided by witnesses. Most of the testimony provided was provided by people who didn’t witness anything. That’s why I consistently called them testifiers, not witnesses.

The transcript of President Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Zelenskiy is the best evidence of what was said during the call. Lt. Col. Vindman listened in on the call. He testified, reluctantly, that the transcript was “essentially correct.” The only fact witness called during the public HPSCI hearings was US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland. Here’s his testimony:

Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler totally ignored this exculpatory evidence. They ignored this and other exculpatory evidence multiple times each. In a real court with rules of evidence, this wouldn’t have gotten to trial because the Democrats’ case had more holes than Swiss cheese. It would’ve gotten no-billed at the grand jury.

This isn’t surprising. Adam Schiff couldn’t tell the truth if his life depended on it. Here’s the first of Schiff’s ‘golden oldies’:

When the Mueller Report came out, the evidence that Schiff allegedly saw wasn’t found. Here’s another of his biggest lies:

Axelrod also wrote this:

Even without the witnesses and documents Trump denied them, the House managers delivered a devastating circumstantial case that the President used the levers of his office to pressure Ukraine.

Hearsay testimony isn’t admissible in a real court, with a few exceptions, and Axelrod knows it. Then Axelrod said this:

He was, as Sen. Mitt Romney said in his courageous dissent from partisan orthodoxy, “guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.”

This is the Mitt Romney that Axelrod accused of being a sexist who hated women. This is the Mitt Romney that the Obama campaign accused of tying the family pet to the roof of their vehicle. Forgive me if I don’t get a sense of sincerity with his statements about Romney.

President Trump isn’t chastened. “He’s triumphant.” He’s triumphant because a team of liars accused him of abusing his power. He’s triumphant because Democrats didn’t present evidence proving that allegation. Democrats lost because 30 allegations still doesn’t equal 1 piece of proof. Democrats lost because 5 allegations repeated 20 times each isn’t proof either.

Axelrod is still the same corrupt weasel that worked for President Obama. Good riddance.

Apparently, Mitt Romney’s hatred of President Trump runs deep and cold. Today, Romney adopted the Democrats’ talking points, saying “What he did was not perfect. No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security, and our fundamental values.”

Only an idiot or a liar could reach that conclusion. Mitt isn’t an idiot. Another thing he isn’t is a Republican. He’s a sanctimonious jackass. When Romney votes to convict President Trump, he’ll become the only Republican to vote with Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, AOC and Ilhan Omar. That isn’t my definition of a Republican.

In a speech from the Senate floor, Romney invoked his religion, saying “As a senator juror, I swore a oath before God to exercise impartial justice. I am profoundly religious. My faith is at the heart of who I am,” Romney said, before getting choked up and taking a pause. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the president, the leader of my own party would be the most difficult decision I have ever made. What he did was not perfect. No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security, and our fundamental values, corrupting an election to keep oneself in office – is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.”

I’m tired of hearing that President Trump “pressured” President Zelenskiy to investigate the Bidens. On 3 separate occasions, President Zelenskiy has stated that he wasn’t pressured. Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko agreed with President Zelenskiy. If Romney wanted to “exercise impartial justice”, the first step in that exercise is to consider the evidence. The evidence is clear. The only people accusing President Trump of pressuring Ukraine are the impeachment managers and the fake whistleblower. Since the whistleblower never testified and was never mentioned by the impeachment managers, his statements are irrelevant.

President Zelenskiy was quoted by President Trump’s defense team. His statements weren’t questioned. That turns President Zelenskiy’s statements into evidence.

Sen. Romney’s hatred of President Trump hasn’t been hidden. Now he’s exposed himself as hating President Trump so much that he’s willing to stab President Trump in the back without a shred of evidence. When he’s up for re-election, count me in for contributing to his primary opponent.

Based on Fox’s reporting and this article, the Senate trial of President Trump’s impeachment is almost over. Wednesday’s questions opened with a question from Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney to President Trump’s legal team.

Before that, though, Mitch McConnell met with Sen. Murkowski “for about 20 to 30 minutes. That was seen as a sign by several senators that Democrats will fail to convince four Republicans to join them in calling for witnesses. Without a vote to hear from witnesses, the trial could end as soon as Friday.”

After their meeting, the mood in the GOP Conference was improved:

“We’re going to get it done by Friday, hopefully,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said following the meeting. Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), emerging from the lunch, said, “I think I can say the mood is good.” Braun expressed confidence that McConnell will be able to keep his conference unified enough to defeat a motion to consider subpoenas for additional witnesses and documents.

Sean Hannity isn’t a great interviewer but he’s been right about the various Trump administration investigations. I take him seriously when he says that the trial is almost over, which he did in his opening monologue Wednesday night:

If Sen. Romney votes to convict President Trump, he’ll instantly become a pariah in Utah. It’s almost guaranteed that he’d get primaried, too. After seeing Matt Towery’s poll results, Mitt would be wise to think twice about rejecting President Trump.

Towery asked 400 registered voters in Utah these questions:

  1. How would you like your 2 senators to vote in the trial? Vote to acquit President Trump: 68%
  2. Do you support or oppose calling additional witnesses? Oppose 64%
  3. More or less likely to support Romney re-election if he votes for witnesses? Less likely 60%

At this point, I can’t picture an outcome were more than 49 senators vote for additional witnesses. If the vote comes out 51-49 in President Trump’s favor, this will become a non-factor in the 2020 senatorial elections. Impeachment just isn’t that important to the people.

It’s purely speculation on my part but I’m betting that Sen. Mitch McConnell will win the debate over whether the Senate will call additional witnesses to the impeachment trial. With senators like Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul threatening to call a bunch of witnesses if Democrats insist on calling John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, Sen. McConnell is sitting in the power seat.

Further, Pat Toomey and Mitt Romney are talking about working out a swap with Chuck Schumer. Cruz, Graham and Paul want the trial to end quickly. That doesn’t mean they aren’t willing to play hardball with witnesses. If the Senate votes to call witnesses, expect Cruz, Graham and Paul to insist on calling Schiff, Chalupa, the Bidens and the whistleblower.

What Lindsey Graham is saying is that Democrats call witnesses at their own peril. This won’t be a John McCain-style deal where Republicans get screwed and McCain gets to act like a dealmaker. That ain’t happening this time. Check this out:

What I would say is that there is not a scintilla of evidence that the Biden’s connection to the Ukraine is inappropriate. There is a tsunami of evidence. So the House managers told the Senate that this is ‘baseless’ that it’s been ‘debunked,’ and I think the defense team, yesterday, made a damning indictment of what Hunter and Joe Biden allowed to happen and it’s not in America’s interest to see this happen again in the Ukraine where Hunter Biden turned it basically into an ATM machine. We’re going to go to that, and there’s media reports, people in your business, that suggested a DNC staffer [Alexandra Chalupa] met with Ukrainian officials about the 2016 election. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but if we’re going to open this up to additional inquiry, we’re going to go down the road of whether it was legitimate for the President to believe there was corruption and conflicts of interest on the Biden’s part in the Ukraine. We’ll explore that, and whether or not there is any credibility to the idea that the DNC may have been working with the Ukraine.

Lindsey has figured out how to negotiate. The McCain-style negotiation is mostly groveling. The Trump-style negotiating means negotiating with a gun to the other guy’s head.. Make the other guy sweat. Make Democrats worry about whether it’s worth it.

Democrats are already worrying about voting:

Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Doug Jones of Alabama are all undecided on whether to vote to remove the president from office and agonizing over where to land.

If I had to bet, I wouldn’t bet against Sen. McConnell. He’s buried tons of people. Why would I think this time will be different? A month ago, he buried Nancy. Last week, he defeated Chuck Schumer 12 straight times.

Finally, I don’t think Mitch is tired of winning. Call your senator. Tell them to vote against witnesses.

This afternoon, Sen. Orrin Hatch announced that he’ll retire from the Senate rather than seek re-election. This opens the door for former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney to run for Sen. Hatch’s seat.

I can’t help but contrast the difference between Sen. Hatch and Sen. Franken, who resigned in disgrace earlier this afternoon. Sen. Franken was a hot-headed malcontent who didn’t get along with others. Sen. Hatch, though, was well-liked by all of his colleagues, including Democrats. Sen. Hatch figured out a way to work with liberals like Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Ted Kennedy. By comparison, there isn’t a Minnesotan who could picture Sen. Franken working with Ted Cruz or Mike Lee.

In typical Hatch fashion, Sen. Hatch graciously exited the stage, saying “every good fighter knows when to hang up the gloves. I may be leaving the Senate, but the next chapter in my public service is just beginning.” By comparison, Sen. Franken was as defiant as he was disgusting, even suggesting that he’d been unfairly accused. With all due respect, Sen. Franken, if you were innocent, why didn’t you fight to clear your name? Perhaps, it’s because you weren’t that innocent?

Here’s Sen. Hatch’s gracious retirement speech:

As I said earlier, that opens the door for Mitt Romney to run for Sen. Hatch’s seat:

Mr. Hatch’s decision clears the way for the political resurrection of Mr. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and 2012 Republican presidential nominee who is now a Utah resident and is popular in the Mormon-heavy state. Mr. Romney has told associates he would likely run if Mr. Hatch retires. “It would be difficult to defeat Mitt Romney if he were running here,” said David Hansen, a longtime Utah Republican strategist and chairman of Mr. Hatch’s political organization.

After the 2018 elections and Congress is wrapping up business, politicians from both sides of the aisle will praise Orrin Hatch. At the end of business today and Al Franken leaves the Senate, few people will remember him a month from now.

In 2012, Mitt Romney was criticized for his comments about the 47% of Americans that don’t pay any taxes. What Mitt said was “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax.”

Immediately, Mitt was accused of not being in touch with America. As a result, President Obama won re-election. This election, Democrats lost because they had their own 47% moment, which Josh Kraushaar explains in this article. In the article, he wrote that “In her campaign tell-all, Clinton sounds like a full-fledged member of the progressive #resistance, content to blame all of her campaign’s woes on sexism, media bias, James Comey, and Russian interference. But she never fully grapples with the biggest problem that crippled her campaign, and which continues to dog her party: the Democrats’ growing cultural disconnect from the rest of the country. Clinton’s decision to call Trump backers deplorable was one of her campaign’s low points. But the problem runs much deeper within her party. Progressives now instinctively label pro-Trump conservatives as ‘white supremacists,’ a slur that paints nearly half the country with a racist brush.”

The Democrats’ problem persists. They still sound as out-of-touch as Hillary did. They still hate blue collar America as much as she did. Another of Hillary’s campaign low spots happened in coal country when she insisted that her administration would put lots of coal companies out of business:

Democrats think that they’re riding a wave of popularity on the NFL/National Anthem fiasco. This paragraph shows how out of touch they are and how far they’ve drifted:

For a sign of how far to the left Democrats have drifted on culture, just look at the last major anthem protest to sweep up a sports league. In 1996, Nuggets star Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf refused to stand for the national anthem, calling the American flag a symbol of tyranny. He was promptly suspended for a game and fined by the NBA. There was no uproar in favor of his right to protest, even in a league where most players were African-American. Condemnation of Abdul-Rauf’s action ran across the political spectrum. Then-commissioner David Stern later mandated players stand in a dignified manner when the anthem was played—a wholly uncontroversial decision.

Democrats in East Coast newsrooms treat Christians like aliens from another planet. They wouldn’t know how to talk with Christians if their life depended on it.

Until they fix their culture wars problem, they should get used to looking in from the outside.

Technorati: , , , ,

Reid Epstein’s article on Sen. Cruz isn’t a flattering portrayal of Sen. Cruz. Frankly, Sen. Cruz’s statements sound whiny and jealous. When Sen. Cruz said “I understand that in the media newsrooms and in the Washington establishment circles, Marco is the chosen one”, it came across as if Sen. Cruz is jealous that Sen. Rubio is getting glowing attention from reporters. At some point, Sen. Cruz should examine why he isn’t getting positive coverage in the press.

It isn’t a secret that Sen. Cruz loves bragging that he isn’t liked by “the Washington cartel.” He wears like it’s a badge of honor. If Sen. Cruz wanted more positive coverage, it might help to not wear his disdain on his sleeve.

That isn’t to say that Sen. Cruz should thirst for the MSM’s approval. Conservatives shouldn’t want that. There’s a difference in degrees, though, between wanting fair coverage and wanting the MSM’s approval.

Launching into bitter-sounding diatribes won’t improve Sen. Cruz’s image with voters. Already, Sen. Rubio is reaching out to the entire Republican Party, something that Sen. Cruz should’ve already started. Instead, Sen. Cruz did this:

Later, inside the packed bar while a repeat of Wednesday night’s hockey games played on the flat-screen TVs, Mr. Cruz launched into another tirade against Mr. Rubio, seeking to cast doubt on the Florida senator’s argument he’s the most electable in the GOP field.

“The media adores him,” Mr. Cruz said. “These are the same people who told us Bob Dole was the electable one, that told us John McCain was the electable one, that told us Mitt Romney was the electable one. You’re always the electable one until you win the nomination, and then you cannot possibly win the election.”

First, comparing Sen. Rubio to Dole, McCain and Romney is like comparing Cadillac Escalades with a Prius. While they’re both vehicles, that’s where the similarities end. Rush Limbaugh never said that Dole, McCain or Romney was “a legitimate, full-throated conservative.”

What’s worse is that Sen. Cruz’s unscripted complaining diminishes him. Rather than being bitter, Sen. Cruz should work on not being as antagonistic as he’s been thus far this campaign.

The reason why the press likes Sen. Rubio is because he’s actually an interesting, positive person. What person, whether they’re a member of the media or not, doesn’t appreciate listening to calm-tempered people over bitter-sounding people?

Rather than complaining about Sen. Rubio, Sen. Cruz should try changing his approach towards the media. Loosen up a little. Don’t be an antagonist. It might help.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

A super PAC announced tonight that they’re hitting Donald Trump with some hard-hitting ads featuring Sen. McCain. When I read the part about Sen. McCain, I was skeptical. After reading the Our Principles super PAC probably shift strategy “to remind voters in New Hampshire about the disgraceful things that he said about John McCain”, it makes sense. Katie Packer, who was Mitt Romney’s deputy campaign manager in 2012, is now “the leader of Our Principles PAC.” She noted that “McCain has long and deep ties to New Hampshire” because “he’s considered to be a war hero.”

The great thing about Our Principles PAC is that it doesn’t attack Trump. It simply uses Trump’s own words against him. With Mr. Trump stagnating in New Hampshire and Sen. Rubio rising fast, this round of advertising couldn’t be better timed. Saying that the race is fluid is understatement. That doesn’t mean that Trump’s support will crater. I’m just saying that with 40+ percent of voters either undecided or willing to change their votes, Trump’s victory-in-waiting isn’t a certainty. It’s a likelihood but it isn’t a certainty.

Packer sees Trump as wounded, saying “He was getting a lot of great publicity because of this air of inevitability and that nothing could take him down. [But] we started seeing his negatives go up considerably almost immediately after we went up in the air and started dropping mail.”

That air of invincibility is disappearing. It isn’t entirely gone but Trump’s act is getting boring. The cable networks aren’t falling over themselves to have him on like they did a month ago. TYhis isn’t good news for Trump:

“We have a little bit more time in South Carolina, which is nice, so we will be able to hit with more content,” Packer said. “You can expect to see some more delving into his business stuff as we move into South Carolina. Because we have more time to put more lead on the target.”

South Carolina is a rough-and-tumble primary. Mr. Trump will have lots of incoming in the days before the First in the South primary. It isn’t a state that’s a good fit for him. (Before I get the emails, yes, I know he’s leading there by a gazillion points. That will change before the New Hampshire Primary and it’ll change even more after the First in the Nation Primary.)

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Donald Trump isn’t the only presidential candidate that doesn’t hesitate in laying things on a little too thick. Based on this article, Ted Cruz fits that description, too. Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Cruz sat down for an interview with Jeff Kuhner. Kuhner opened by asking “Is Marco Rubio a genuine conservative?” He asked that after listing Rubio’s support for “open borders,” “NSA spying,” and the Obama administration’s Trans Pacific Partnership during an onstage interview.

Sen. Cruz’s reply was predictable, though a bit dishonest. Cruz said “On each of the issues you just listed, Marco’s views are virtually indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton. Let me say this, if we nominate a candidate who’s pro-amnesty, we’ll lose. It’s not complicated. It’s real simple.”

First, Sen. Cruz’s support for taking tools away from the NSA is disappointing. If Sen. Cruz wants to defend taking away a valuable tool from our intelligence-gathering community, let’s hear him make that part of his stump speech. Sen. Cruz has the opportunity to explain why he thinks it’s wise to seriously limit the NSA’s abilities without hurting people’s civil rights. I’d love to hear Sen. Cruz’s explanation.

Further, Mrs. Clinton doesn’t support TPP. Apparently, Ted won’t let little things like the facts get in the way of an old-fashioned ad hominem attack against one of his chief rivals.

Third, Sen. Cruz isn’t being honest when he says that Marco supports amnesty. Here’s what Sen. Rubio supports:

Marco has consistently advocated fixing America’s immigration system, beginning with securing our border, enforcing immigration laws in the workplace, and implementing effective visa tracking systems.

That sounds a lot like Sen. Cruz’s plan. This does, too:

Starting on Day One of his presidency, Marco will be focused on immigration security.

He will:

  1. Cancel President Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders
  2. Eliminate federal funding for sanctuary cities
  3. Deport criminal illegal aliens
  4. Hire 20,000 new Border Patrol agents
  5. Finish all 700 miles of walls on our southern border
  6. Implement an entry-exit visa tracking system
  7. Implement a mandatory eVerify system
  8. Install $4 billion in new cameras and sensors on the border

If that doesn’t sound like the Gang of Eight bill, it’s because it isn’t similar to the Gang of Eight bill.

If Sen. Cruz is serious about this, then we’re in trouble:

Cruz pointed to the 2012 election as evidence for his theory and noted the Republican Party got clobbered after nominating Mitt Romney, whose record on healthcare caused headaches for conservatives seeking contrast with Obamacare.

That’s breathtaking. Comparing Mitt Romney with Sen. Rubio is like comparing Tim Scott with Mitch McConnell. Comparing Mitt Romney with Sen. Rubio is like comparing Trey Gowdy with Lindsey Graham. It’s a preposterous comparison. Nobody thought that Mitt Romney was a conservative. No less a conservative’s conservative than Rush Limbaugh called Sen. Rubio “a legitimate, full-throated conservative.”

Listening only to Sen. Cruz, you’d think that Sen. Rubio was an establishment RINO. It isn’t just that the facts don’t support Sen. Cruz’s opinion. It’s that a conservative’s conservative, Rush Limbaugh, rejects this opinion.

This points to a simple question: when will Sen. Cruz stop with the exaggerations?