Cruz calls McConnell a liar in the Senate

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Most interesting: Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today called Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) a liar in a speech on the Senate floor.

“We had a Senate Republican lunch where I stood up and I asked the majority leader very directly, what was the deal that was just cut on [trade legislation], and was there a deal for the Export-Import Bank? It was a direct question. I asked the majority leader in front of all the Republican senators. The majority leader was visibly angry with me that I would ask such a question, and the majority leader looked at me and said, “There is no deal, there is no deal, there is no deal.”

“Like Saint Peter, he repeated it three times,” Cruz added.

[Cruz also said,] “What we just saw today was an absolute demonstration that not only what he told every Republican senator, but what he told the press over and over and over again, was a simple lie,” Cruz said Friday morning. “We know now that when the majority leader looks us in the eyes and makes an explicit commitment, that he is willing to say things that he knows are false. That has consequences for how this body operates.”

I have embedded video of this speech below the fold.

The increasing public anger expressed by Cruz here against the Republican leadership is a sign of a growing power struggle within that party. About 20% to 30% of the Republican Party feels more loyalty to the Democrats and the Washington power structure than they do to the conservative voters that have supported that party. Unfortunately, it appears that this small minority in the Republican party is presently in charge.

Should the conservative majority ever unify to dump their liberal leadership, there is the risk that many of these Republican leaders will then abandon the party and join the Democrats. The Democrats will then likely regain control of Congress, but if so, they will at least be then fighting an opponent that is unified in support of conservative principles, rather than a party run by two-faced leaders who campaign as conservatives and, having won their elections, immediately team up with the Democrats to block any conservative reform.

It is also possible that these fake conservatives, once kicked out of the leadership, will meekly join the conservative majority, knowing that to join the Democrats will likely get most of them tossed from office at the next election.

Either way, the heavens are beginning to align in favor of a major power shift within the Republican Party. Stay tuned.


  • Rocco`

    I am living in Kentucky. I witnessed the massive money flowing into both Mitch McConnell’s and S.S. Grimes’ senate race. The choice at the time was the Secretary of State Allison Grimes or Sen. Mitch McConnell. I voted for Sen. McConnell not because he is a 100% honest guy but because he was the least likely to cause harm to the country or my state. I am sorry Kentucky.

  • Cotour

    Cruz in time will lead the Senate based on the action that he took. In addition I think it is becoming clear that the status quo, dynastic, assumed candidates and assumed successors to the presidency are being soundly rejected, not good signs for Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. And I say good riddance!

  • David M. Cook

    After hearing Carly Fiorina respond to another leftist trying to make her look bad, I think the “Dream Ticket” for 2016 would be Donald Trump/Carly Fiorina for Pres/Vice-Pres.

    With Ted Cruz leading the newly-conservative Senate! Yeah, baby!

    Hey, I can dream, can’t I?

  • Cotour

    Fiorina is strategically positioning herself to be the obvious default vice presidential candidate IMO. She is smart and as sharp as they come, speaks very well and like Trump can say pretty much what ever she feels she needs to say. I would be happy with your suggested combination, two non professional take charge “politicians” brought in to actually take care of the peoples business and restore as much of the Constitution as they can.

    I think the natural professional political Republican candidate choice is Scott Walker, I will also say Rubio but he has demonstrated his inexperience by too easily allowing himself to be manipulated by his seniors in the Senate. That worries me. And I do not like the title “professional politician”, a vial term that identifies the lowest of the low in humanity. Thats what happens to empowered people when they allow themselves to be seduced by that power and get to operate the levers of government. Trade your soul to the devil if you play the game and allow it.

    Vial: see Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, John Boner.

  • “And I do not like the title “professional politician”, a vial (sic) term that identifies the lowest of the low in humanity.”

    I disagree. At one time I would have agreed, but some years ago II read an essay, still on my computer somewhere, that made the case for the career politician. If I recall correctly, the essence of the essay is that as social animals, humans need individuals skilled in the art of compromise. This is an art that can be learned, but not brute-forced.

    Corruption in politics (or anywhere else) is a symptom of the system, and, more to the point, the way social organizations are structured. The catch is, we can’t do much about the way we organize political structures: our brains are built one way.

    And that’s the real problem. What we’ve historically done, and will do in the future, is one side or the other will beat the other into submission. Then the beaten side will rebel. And so the story goes. I hold no great hope for humanity at this point.

  • Cotour

    Lets put a finer point on this subject, the nature of man and power. I first use this piece which comes from of all places, a liberal web site. Its not just about power but about smart and wise power. How can they post such a story and not understand the underlying lesson?

    I know what your general point is but if power is attained by those who can not rise to the occasion related to that level of power that they have attained, and many, many of them can not, then you have a much higher level of corruption and abuse of power. Why? Because like in the wolf analogy many of those who attain power choose to vanquish their competition out of insecurity and fear instead of having the personal strength, leadership skills, vision, wisdom and belief in their abilities, vision and capability of creating that “compromise” that you speak of.

    Barack Obama seeks to “compromise” with the Iranians. That is not compromise, compromise comes out of strength and not weakness. Foolishly believing that empowering your enemy will make them “like” you, is just that foolish, or at that worst you are a traitor through your foolishness. The Republican leadership is not “compromising” with the president, they are empowering him. Compromise for compromise’s sake is at the minimum a sideways move and more than likely is a move in reverse and is a signal that you are weak. You may as well be using the term (which I despise) bi partisan.

    #21 will kill you if he determines that has too but he is able to wisely judge (in the wolf example, compromise with his opponent) whether that is necessary. And that “compromise” has the potential to turn you into some level of alley and asset to the group. He may have to kill his opponent later if things do not work out but his strength allows him to “compromise” for the good of the group. And that is a projection of strength / leadership is transmitted throughout the society.

    “Corruption in politics (or anywhere else) is a symptom of the system” This is an inaccurate to an incomplete statement, corruption is not so much a symptom of the system. 1. corruption is the nature of man as it relates to acquiring and retaining power and 2. a reflection of the lack of leadership skills or weak leadership. So corruption is not a symptom of a system but something that is expected as a result of acquired and retained power. Its not the cough, its the underlying cancer that must be understood and dealt with.

    These rules of survival in the real world were all understood by the Founders and their understanding about the nature of man and power in that reality resulted in the Constitution, we must reconnect with that reality. And that will take #21 kind of leadership.

    (George Washington was a #21 kind of leader, they are few and far between)

  • Cotour

    Yes, thank you.

  • Cotour

    The Iranian Leader (if that is who indeed sent this) plainly transmits that Obama is weak, there is no “compromise”. Obama is not a leader, he is weak mean who finds himself in a position of great power. And THAT is dangerous for everyone involved.

    Luckily, if luck will stick around, in our system power is scheduled to be peacefully surrendered shortly and at that point We The People must choose strength and #21 type leadership. And God help us if we do not!

  • Cotour

    “he is weak MAN who finds himself in a position of great power. “

  • Edward

    That is an interesting analysis, Cotour. It describes more than just George Washington, it describes the United States. At least the US before socialism started taking hold.

    In the distant past, more than half a century ago, when the US vanquished an enemy (we still haven’t lost a war, but we now keep losing the peace), we would advocate for, or manage, rebuilding efforts, when needed.

    Wilson advocated that Europe not be too harsh with Germany after WWI. They were too harsh, and that left a vengeful nation that was easily led into another major war.

    After WWI, the US stayed behind to make sure that Germany, Italy, Japan, and many other nations were properly rebuilt. No vengeful populations were left behind, and no more major wars were started by these nations.

    Even after the (un)Civil war, the Union made sure that the vanquished South was rebuilt (although I believe that Lincoln would have led a better effort). There was left over animosity from the North, and there remains, to this day, heartfelt longing for an independent South (“The South shall rise again!”).

    But ever since the liberals, the hippy generation, and the Choom Gangs started influencing the country, we have done a very poor job of staying behind to make sure that a vanquished North Vietnam did not vengefully break its peace treaty. Nor did we make sure that Iraq was left in capable hands.

    Now we reap what the amateurish left has sewn.

    Even when that left has donned Republican clothing, in the form of McConnell.

  • Frank

    Trump and Sanders are serving an important role for the electorate and press. Their populist positions serve to shake up and wake up those who have been silenced, but these men will not be elected. The dems have a very tired and out of touch Hillary to turn to, but the right has most qualified field of candidates to choose from in my lifetime. These men and woman would be wise to note and adopt the stand for change Trump strikes with so many voters.

  • Cotour

    The left is vengeful, the left is small, they do not have the capacity to think into the future other than how can they control what they feel they must control out of their insecurity because they are small. The left is incapable of rising to the #21 level, the left can only manipulate through the application of fear. (which is not to say that only the left uses fear to manipulate)

    And when people talk about Americas “exceptionalism” the uniqueness of the Constitution and that #21 aspect of power is actually what they are talking about, not about the arrogance of America or Americans (which is not to say that Americans can not be arrogant).

    George Washington being a #21 type of leader and his understanding of what he was involved in and his choices related to what he was involved in is a metaphor for the Constitution and America itself. Its not perfect, nothing is perfect, but its still the best arrangement for governance, individual respect and freedom IMO.

  • Cotour

    And back to Blair’s point, both the potential to rise to the occasion and fail related to leadership (read: the politician) always exists, unfortunately the perverting influence of power on the human being is a powerful subjective force. I don’t mean to lump them all together implying that there are no good people involved in government, there certainly are but look at where that gets us even though there are well intentioned and good people involved in government.

    I repost this, the rules of power, Strategy Over Morality (S.O.M.). If you are able to divorce yourself for a moment from being a moral perspective human being and understand this then as disturbing as it is you will better understand the real nature of power. First we eat, then civilization.



    How civilizations, governments and wars throughout history are founded, fought and must at their existential core operate.

    Strategy Over Morality describes a two-tiered “conversation” between a Public and their Leadership where the Public believes there is only a single, no tiered conversation occurring and that single conversation relates to the Public’s morality model perspective.

    A model in which leadership can choose to formulate an interpretation of their core fiduciary responsibilities which becomes paramount over and above the public’s morality model. Where plausible deniability can be claimed when “immoral” acts or strategies are employed by leadership or by arms length leadership proxies.

    In this “conversation”, leadership steps “down” to the public’s level and presents information, agenda or strategy in a tailored, palatable package the public can believe and comfortably accept. Leadership then steps back to their “higher” level, formulates and executes “necessary” agenda and strategy where the public’s interpretation of morality is not relevant.

    CONCLUSION: The public lives and operates under a moral code perspective which they assume their leadership is constrained by. This is a subjective false perspective conclusion on the part of the public, in fact leaderships core fiduciary responsibility requires that leadership is or can be selectively or necessarily void of “morality”.


    PUBLIC: The individual citizens of any civilization, society or country.

    LEADERSHIP: Any macro governing body concerned with the formulation and implementation of laws, strategies and policies, both civil and military.

    LEADERSHIPS CORE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES: Above all else the promotion and survival of the society, culture, boundaries, power and treasure.

    Related questions:

    1. Who’s benevolence and self interest model would you rather live under, yours or your enemies ?

    2. What steps will you not undertake in order for your benevolence and self interest model to prevail ?

    3. When does morality trump power and treasure ?

    4. What influences leadership and agenda ?

    Answers and Rules of operation:

    1. You never want to live under an enemies benevolence and self interest model.

    2. You will take any steps in order to live under your benevolence and self interest model.

    3. In order for “morality” to be implemented it is initially trumped by survival and power. “First we eat, then civilization”

    4. The possessors of power and treasure always influence leadership and agenda.

    5. Leadership never willingly gives up power.

  • Edward

    Blair disagreed with Cotour, thinking that “professional politicians” provided a needed skill, the “art of the compromise.”

    I agree with Cotour, that our politicians should not be “professional” or “for life.” Most people do not enter politics as corrupt people, but over time they become corrupted and forget the problems of the non-ruling class, even to the point of thinking that those who built businesses “didn’t build that.”

    The movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” is a good telling of this phenomenon. Senator Paine (Claude Rains) is the old Senator who knows how Washington works, but he has become corrupted because he has been there too long — Washington works through corruption.

    Mr. Smith (Jimmy Stewart) is the new, enthusiastic, idealistic Senator who does not believe in the corruption of Washington. If there were a sequel that visited Mr. Smith after he had been there for a couple of decades, we would have discovered that he had become just as corrupted as Paine.

    Even “the art of the compromise” is Washington-ese for corruption. When a watered down compromise of a solution is worse than the problem to be solved, compromise has done us ill. We can see that “compromise” did not do us any favors in (the amateur) Barack’s Iranian deal. Cruz is pointing out that (the experienced) McConnell did us no favors in compromising a trade deal.

    In real life, Washington’s “class of 1994” was a bunch of Mr. Smiths. Now, those who are still there, are the Senator Paines — corrupt and cynical. Two decades is plenty of time to corrupt a politician.

    Even Ted Cruz (one of our latest “Mr. Smiths”) is not immune to corruption. It just has yet to take his mind, heart, and soul. Corruption took Obama long ago (perhaps as soon as he entered politics).

    I believe that is why the Founding Fathers expected U.S. politicians to serve only a few years, then go back to their day jobs. It is too bad that they failed to put that concept into the Constitution.

    The “professional politician” is not the only problem, but term limits is one step in a long list of steps that could fix the corruption in American politics.

  • Boehner will not be ousted from this action. Don’t put any money on it. However, the article illustrates again the seething and growing dissatisfaction among elected conservatives for their Republican leadership. Moreover, it indicates, like Cruz’s speech on Friday, that they are getting increasingly open with that hostility.

    There is a civil war brewing within the party, and I expect this war to break out in public sometime in the next year. The Presidential campaign will have an influence, but other events could cause an outbreak independent of that.

  • Cotour

    Its a positive sign, I’m sure that this particular action will not be successful at this point but I can see it growing to the point of critical mass. But I also think that both leaderships have each for their own reasons dragged the country so far down the road resulting in real financial and Constitutional destruction that anything that can be done will be too little too late and the country will become entrapped in the One World Government model. Which again each for their own perverted reasons our leadership for the past 30 or so years has dragged us to.

    An example? Obamacare, even though one faction of leadership says it is against and insists it will strike from existence, but both leaderships and the Supreme Court have ensured that the people are entrapped and encumbered by it.

    Its not what anyone says, its what they do that counts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *