Iowa Ted Cruz, meet Manhattan Ted Cruz

In Iowa, Ted Cruz is a theocrat. He rails against the “atheist Taliban” and says that non-believers can’t be president. He calls the Supreme Court “lawless” and promises to put a repeal of Obergefell v Hodges front and center” in his administration. He speaks with a preacher’s tone, and makes Biblical allusions when talking foreign policy.

In Manhattan, however, it appears to be a different story.

From Mike Allen at POLITICO:

But in December, behind closed doors at a big-dollar Manhattan fundraiser, the quickly ascending presidential candidate assured a Republican gay-rights supporter that a Cruz administration would not make fighting same-sex marriage a top priority.

In a recording provided to POLITICO, Cruz answers a flat “No” when asked whether fighting gay marriage is a “top-three priority,” an answer that pleased his socially moderate hosts but could surprise some of his evangelical backers.

Here’s the full exchange:

Male questioner: Can I ask you a question? So, I’m a big supporter. And the only issue I really disagree with you about is gay marriage. And I’m curious: Given all the problems that the country’s facing — like ISIS, the growth of government — how big a priority is fighting gay marriage going to be to a Cruz administration?

Cruz: My view on gay marriage is that I’m a constitutionalist and marriage is a question for the states. And so I think if someone wants to change the marriage laws of their state, the way to do so is convince your fellow citizens — and change them democratically, rather than five unelected judges. … Being a constitutionalist is integral to my approach to every other issue. So that I’m very devoted to.

Questioner: So would you say it’s like a top-three priority for you — fighting gay marriage?

Cruz: No. I would say defending the Constitution is a top priority. And that cuts across the whole spectrum — whether it’s defending [the] First Amendment, defending religious liberty, stopping courts from making public policy issues that are left to the people.

I also think the 10th Amendment of the Constitution cuts across a whole lot of issues and can bring people together. People of New York may well resolve the marriage question differently than the people of Florida or Texas or Ohio. … That’s why we have 50 states — to allow a diversity of views. And so that is a core commitment.

The recording was taken at the same December 9th fundraiser where Cruz questioned Donald Trump and Ben Carson’s fitness for the presidency, asking whether they had the judgement and temperament necessary to be trusted with the nuclear launch codes.

Allen notes that Cruz’s more moderate tone with respect to marriage equality at the fundraiser can be made to fit what he’s said on the campaign trail, but it takes some work. Presidents do juggle their “top-three” priorities all the time, and more than three issues will be “front and center” in a given administration. Cruz also followed up his “No” by explaining, as he has on the trail, that his number one priority is “defending the Constitution” and suggesting that the issue should be sent back to the states.

But it’s worth keeping in mind that Ted Cruz was one of just four signatories to the National Organization for marriage’s pledge promising to support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. So he’s either lying when he says he really thinks marriage equality should be decided at the state level, or he’s going back on his pledge to work to overturn marriage equality at the national level.

Perhaps more importantly, since candidate pledges aren’t exactly binding and the National Organization for Marriage is becoming increasingly irrelevant, it’s worth keeping in mind that Cruz struck this moderate tone at a high-dollar fundraiser just two days after he locked up the support of some of our country’s most prominent Evangelical leaders. And he earned their support in large part due to his repeated and emphatic commitment to overturning marriage equality, along with championing Judeo-Christian values throughout his administration. Cruz loves to talk — as he did at the December 9th fundraiser — about how he’s positioned himself in the conservative “lane” of the Republican primary, but for all of his bluster about principles and conviction, it appears as though his fire and brimstone is conditional.

That could be a problem with Republican primary voters, who seem especially sensitive this year to the perception that they are being lied to by elected officials within their own party. They’ve gravitated to Cruz, especially in Iowa, in large part due to his seemingly-genuine religiosity — a trait that Donald Trump clearly doesn’t share. Without credibility there, it would be much harder for him to emerge as the more polished alternative to the straight-talking, like it is-telling Donald Trump.

Especially given that Cruz is a caricature of the exact kind of cynical politician he’s spent his campaign warning voters about.

Jon Green graduated from Kenyon College with a B.A. in Political Science and high honors in Political Cognition. He worked as a field organizer for Congressman Tom Perriello in 2010 and a Regional Field Director for President Obama's re-election campaign in 2012. Jon writes on a number of topics, but pays especially close attention to elections, religion and political cognition. Follow him on Twitter at @_Jon_Green, and on Google+. .

Share This Post

8 Responses to “Iowa Ted Cruz, meet Manhattan Ted Cruz”

  1. jayyuma says:

    Is sharia law a ‘good’ thing?
    I’m almost anxious to see the future evolve. Sometimes you may get what you ‘pray’ for.
    And this has nothing to do with Cruz being president. Bezmenov knew what was coming, unfortunately.

  2. jayyuma says:

    His priority, from what I know, is effecting the Constitution.
    Just a dimwit, but words mean things (to me).

  3. jayyuma says:

    Oooh. I’d like to hear that excerpt that ‘he hates gays’. That would change my opinion.

  4. Don Chandler says:

    I’m reminded of Romney running for President. He had these secret meetings with conservatives. Even his wife supposedly went to meet Family Research Council. The Romneys wanted to reassure the conservative base that they were going to be conservative. They told them, don’t listen to all the rhetoric, ultimately, “I got your back”. Romney lost. Gay Marriage is law. So in Iowa, conservatives probably know Cruz has got their “back”. Cruz can say he’s for the constitution and that is code for undermining the same-sex marriage ruling with state’s rights. So, Cruz tells the Manhattan crowd he’s a defender of the Constitution. But in recent events and in private, he reassures his conservative base that he hates the gays. Nobody is fooled, except the voter that asks the question if they also accepted the answer.

  5. Butch1 says:

    He acts like the decision of gay-marriage hasn’t been decided yet by the Supreme Court. This fool dismisses the fact when he says “unelected judges” or “justices” that the people we elect to office, (e.g. representatives and senators) ARE the ones who select or vote those judges and justices for the higher court offices. To dismiss their authority when he disagrees with their rulings is typical of him and other republicans when it suits them. They would like to be able to vote (by popular means) these people out of office if they could as well.

    He is a pathological liar and his arrogance will trip him up. He is a one-trick pony and all he can preach about have religious theme based messages attached to them. Of course, anti-gay bills and measures will be his priorities when he becomes the president.

    (“atheist Taliban?”) This is just another one of his oxymorons that his dim-witted base will lap up enthusiastically.

  6. Hue-Man says:

    You forgot the urgent need to re-criminalize homosexuality. Here’s a Christmas story about gays at a party from 1950 – the dream decade of Rafael Cruz and the other TeaParty/GOP fascists. Ah, the Good Old Days!

    “There are records of police raiding private events. They would demand to know the names, addresses, and places of employment of guests who often faced subsequent dismissal. At times, constables assaulted and harassed the partiers and whenever possible laid charges. When the tabloid press caught wind of these events, they often had a field day. Consider the following piece of journalistic prose from 1950. The article ran under the screaming headline

    “Cops Burst in on Mass Carnival of Homo Lust! Simpering Creatures Dress Like Girls; Lipstick Too!”

    and provided the following colourful account:

    “An unparalleled saturnalia of inverted sex, heavily larded with somber tones of lavender, recently rocked staid old Quebec City [where] seventeen males (you should pardon the expression!) danced, pranced, capered and gyrated around the floor […]. When the gendarmes finally burst into this cozy little nest of queers [they] were slapped into the
    cooler without bail!” ”

  7. emjayay says:

    Well that’s a relief. With President Cruz and the justices he will appoint to the Supreme Court (which could easily be three or four) the various states can go back to banning interracial marriage and maybe going back just a few years more instituting racial segregation and Jim Crow. Maybe some will go back farther and institute Black Codes. Probably none will reinstitute slavery, but you never know. No reason why not, at least Constitutionally apparently.

  8. gratuitous says:

    Read carefully what Cruz said in response to the question: Your rights are subject to which state in the United States you happen to be standing at any given moment. Yes, you can be married to your same-sex partner in, say, Massachusetts, but the two of you can not be married if the good burghers of, say, South Carolina, don’t think you should be. I wonder if there are any other civil rights that Sen. Cruz would make contingent on geography? Will anyone ask him about that?

    As to Evangelical Cruz versus Manhattan Cruz, I suspect he’ll skate along without anyone asking him about it, because political reporters are deathly allergic to asking questions about a candidate’s purported faith, particularly if it touches on the fundamentalist-evangelical third rail.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS