Carl Yastrzemski Ted Cruz Stats, Immigration and Context

Readability

Carl Yastrzemski Ted Cruz Stats, Immigration and Context

9th Doc­tor: This sta­tion is designed to explode the minute it reaches capac­ity.
Rose: Didn’t any­one notice? Isn’t there some­one in Lon­don check­ing this sort of stuff?
Mar­garet: We’re in Cardiff. Lon­don doesn’t care. The South Wales coast could fall into the sea and they wouldn’t notice.

Doc­tor Who Boom­town 2005

One of the most impor­tant things that is con­stantly ignored by peo­ple try­ing to spin event for their gain is con­text such as what is cur­rently going one by peo­ple who are try­ing to paint Ted Cruz as sup­port­ing Ille­gal Immi­gra­tion & gay marriage.

The best way to expose this canard is to put things in their proper con­text and the best way I can think of doing that is tak­ing a page out of Bill James book and talk about baseball.

Namely Carl Yas­trzem­ski in 1968.

For those not famil­iar with either Base­ball in gen­eral or Carl Yas­trzem­ski in par­tic­u­lar he was a left fielder for the Boston Red Sox who played from 1961 till 1983. Carl played Left field replac­ing the immor­tal Ted Williams while play­ing the occa­sional game in cen­ter field right field and even third base. With the com­ing of Jim Rice and the DH era he became a reg­u­lar 1B and occa­sional DH in addi­tion to Left Field duties

He was a far supe­rior fielder to Williams win­ning seven Gold gloves over 23 sea­sons and also lead­ing the league in out­field assists seven times, but it was his bat that helped him to 18 all star games 3 bat­ting titles 5 on base titles two slug­ging titles 3 dou­bles titles and in 1967 became the last player to win the triple crown Hit­ting .326 with 44 Home Runs and 121 Runs bat­ted in lead­ing in all three cat­e­gories and get­ting the Boston Red­sox to the world series for the first time in 21 years.

Yaz would retire in 1983 and be promptly voted into the base­ball hall of fame along with Johnny Bench both in their first year of eli­gi­bil­ity. Yaz snagged 94.6% the 17th high­est num­ber of bal­lots all time but behind Bench that year who got 96.4%.

So pretty much in the 115 years of mod­ern base­ball it’s safe to say he was one of the great­est play­ers of all time con­sid­ered by many in the top 5 left field­ers behind Stan Musial, Williams, Ricky Hen­der­son and Barry Bonds and with­out ques­tion in the top 10.

But for the pur­pose of this piece let’s focus on his 1968 sea­son, which fol­lowed his career year.

At first glance it would seem to be a dis­ap­point­ment. Yaz bat­ted .301 a full .025 point drop from his pre­vi­ous year. He hit 23 home runs just over half his total of the prior year, and drove in 74 runs, a far cry from the 121 of the year before.

How­ever let’s take a closer look at these num­ber via a few Topps base­ball card backs First in RBI’s

yaz rbi 1969

As you can see Yaz’s RBI’s total was good enough to put him 8th in the league tied with rookie Reg­gie Jack­son and just behind Brooks Robin­son but not near his team­mate Ken Har­rel­son who led the league

Well how about those 23 mea­ger Home Runs?

yaz hr

Yet it turns out Yaz 23 Home Runs while 2nd on the Red Sox behind Ken Harrleson’s 35 was good enough for 7th in the league just behind two mem­bers of the World Series win­ning Detroit Tigers (Norm Cash and Bill Free­man) and behind league leader Frank Howard’s 44.

Finally let’s look at his bat­ting avg. How did a .301 aver­age look in 1968? Turns out pretty damn good

yaz avg1969 1

Yup he lead the league in fact not only was he was the only man in the Amer­i­can league to hit over over .300 that year but only one other player even man­aged to get to .290

yaz avg1969 2.

But the best way to judge how good those stats were are to look at the MVP vot­ing for the year

yaz mvp 1969

Yaz’s num­bers were good enough to get him 9th place in the MVP vot­ing in the year of the pitcher. Denny McLain of the World Series Cham­pion Detroit Tigers would win the MVP and two other pitch­ers would fin­ish tied for 5th in the vot­ing (Luis Tiant & Dave McNally) ahead of him. Yaz would be 6th among posi­tion play­ers behind HR leader Frank Howard, RBI leader Ken Har­rel­son & three Detroit Tigers bat­ters, all who had the advan­tage of not fac­ing Tiger pitch­ing that year. In fact Yaz would be 1st in a stat not yet invented wins over replace­ment a full 2 runs against #2 player Brooks Robinson.

So all in all, while at first glance Carl Yastrzemski’s 1968 num­bers were not that impres­sive, par­tic­u­larly com­pared to the year before based on rel­a­tive num­bers that year IN CON­TEXT, he was eas­ily one of the 10 best play­ers in the league.

Now let’s con­sider Ted Cruz in con­text on Immi­gra­tion the favorite attack of the Marco Rubio team, the one that really mat­ters, amnesty.

First remem­ber the rea­son for this attack from Rubio fans is to can­cel out his own prob­lems on the issue, as was evi­dent even as he made appear­ance in early 2014.

While he touched on one of the ele­phants in the room (that one being the statue of one next to his podium) he didn’t have a word to say about the other, his sup­port for the Sen­ate Amnesty bill that has been the chief cause of his freefall in NH pres­i­den­tial polls.

Nev­er­the­less his speech was well received and it remains to be seen if with such a large field of excel­lent GOP can­di­dates to choose from, he will be able to recover his for­mer stand­ing. That pretty much depends on what hap­pens with amnesty in the house.

If the House fails to pass the Amnesty bill then I sus­pect he will be given a mul­li­gan and be able to make his case.

If how­ever the house passes a bill, and such a bill gets to the president’s desk then Repub­li­cans in NH and else­where are unlikely to for­get, or forgive

This was the cause for the Rubio Regen­er­a­tion and his deci­sion to stand with Ted Cruz on other issues in 2013

Alas for Rubio McCain was right, he DID get the credit, or rather the blame and now in every pol he falls into the 2nd tier of GOP con­tenders for 2016.
The field we used for this poll is not exactly the same as April– Ayotte and Cruz replaced Susana Mar­tinez and Rick Perry, who had received lit­tle sup­port. But at any rate it’s clear Marco Rubio has fallen pre­cip­i­tously, from 25% then to his cur­rent 7% standing.

And that’s why he is stick­ing with Ted Cruz this time.

While some (OK me) fig­ure Rubio is young and was played, he’s not tak­ing any chances. As long as Ted Cruz con­tin­ues to fight Marco Rubio stands at his side.

It’s an odd sit­u­a­tion, the MSM avoids men­tion­ing or attack­ing Rubio on the sub­ject say­ing bluntly he needs to get him­self right with the tea party, almost as if they were work­ing under the assump­tion that he is fak­ing it but more likely because they will need to con­vince him to vote with them again if amnesty passes the house.

And on the other end while Rubio stands with Cruz in the Sen­ate he isn’t mak­ing appear­ances before con­ser­v­a­tive groups like the Tea Party. His absence from the DC rally two weeks ago was no acci­dent. He knew if he took that stage the cho­rus of boos would have been the story.

But more impor­tantly than the whys about Marco Rubio’s tac­tics, what were peo­ple say­ing at the time

But as Con­gress arrives at a key moment in its work to over­haul the nation’s immi­gra­tion laws, the two stand at oppo­site ends of the debate on whether to allow the nation’s 11million unau­tho­rized immi­grants to become cit­i­zens. That divide mir­rors the argu­ment within the Repub­li­can Party over how to han­dle the immi­gra­tion bill — and could end up pro­pelling, or sink­ing, the two sen­a­tors as they mull pos­si­ble pres­i­den­tial runs in 2016.

That’s USA today in May of 2013 on Ted Cruz vs Marco rubio. They seem to think they weren’t on the same side, they’re not alone:

NBC Latino June 2013:

Cruz also spoke at Repub­li­can Con­gress­man Steve King’s six hour anti-​immigration reform press con­fer­ence on Wednes­day where he was greeted with cheers and claps as he main­tained his hard stance against the bill. Con­gress­man King was the leg­is­la­tor who intro­duced an amend­ment to repeal DACA and deport DREAM­ers.
In the Tea party rally, how­ever, Sen­a­tor Marco Rubio’s name wasn’t received so warmly at King’s rally. The once Tea-​Party favorite faced a back­lash from the crowd gath­ered in front of the Capi­tol. Audi­ence mem­bers booed at any men­tion of Rubio’s name. Some atten­dees car­ried signs tar­get­ing the Florida Republican.

Marco Rubio has not read his own bill” exclaimed Robert Rec­tor, a researcher for the Her­itage Foundation.

National Review notes Chuck Schumer didn’t think Cruz was for it:

Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), who sug­gested that Cruz’s oppo­si­tion to the bill had less to do with his desire for increased bor­der secu­rity than with his oppo­si­tion to a path to cit­i­zen­ship for ille­gal immi­grants. (Cruz filed an amend­ment that would bar ille­gal immi­grants from becom­ing cit­i­zens.) “I would like to point out the bor­der secu­rity in the state of Texas is not some abstract con­cept,” Cruz said, before invit­ing Schumer and his other col­leagues to come visit and see for them­selves. “I believe Amer­i­cans of good­will, both Repub­li­cans and Democ­rats across this coun­try want the U.S. gov­ern­ment to get seri­ous about secur­ing the border.”

Let’s take a look at the vote con­cern­ing one Cruz amend­ment on immi­gra­tion:

A Sen­ate com­mit­tee rejected an immigration-​legislation amend­ment offered by Sen. Ted Cruz today that would have added sig­nif­i­cant secu­rity resources along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The amend­ment pro­posed tripling the num­ber of Bor­der Patrol agents sta­tioned along the U.S.-Mexico bor­der and qua­dru­pling equip­ment, “includ­ing cam­eras, sen­sors, drones and heli­copters,” within three years. And the 700 miles of bor­der fence required by a 2006 law would need to be finished.

If the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­rity failed to com­ply, 20 per­cent of its bud­get for the next year would be shifted as block grants to bor­der states, giv­ing state offi­cials in Texas, Ari­zona, Cal­i­for­nia and New Mex­ico more funds for their own bor­der secu­rity efforts. And another penalty: a 20 per­cent salary cut for the Sec­re­tary of Home­land Secu­rity and all other polit­i­cal appointees at the department.

The amend­ment was voted down 135, with Sen. John Cornyn sup­port­ing his fel­low Repub­li­can after a brief pause dur­ing the roll call.

US News and World Report:

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-​Texas, a newly elected Repub­li­can with a pen­chant for mak­ing head­lines, filed an amend­ment that would bar undoc­u­mented immi­grants cur­rently liv­ing in the United States from ever earn­ing citizenship…Cruz isn’t the only one throw­ing poten­tial poi­son pills into the mix.

Poi­son Pill?

The New Yorker:

The long-​awaited immigration-​reform bill writ­ten by the hap­lessly named Gang of Eight in the United States Sen­ate got buried this week, not unex­pect­edly, by a great mud­slide of amend­ments — more than three hun­dred, at last count…Many were mali­cious. Sen­a­tor Ted Cruz, of Texas, pro­posed that any­one who had ever lived ille­gally in the U.S. be barred for life from U.S. cit­i­zen­ship. The pri­mary pur­pose of this over­haul, of course, is to offer the eleven mil­lion peo­ple believed to be liv­ing here ille­gally the chance to become legal — to give those who qual­ify a “path­way to citizenship.”

Mali­cious? Doesn’t sound like sup­port for the bill to me

Huffpo:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-​Texas), an almost cer­tain “no” vote on the bill from the so-​called gang of eight, filed an amend­ment on Tues­day to ban any­one who has been in the U.S. with­out sta­tus from becom­ing a cit­i­zen at any point…

Other Repub­li­cans on the Sen­ate Judi­ciary Com­mit­tee have also pro­posed mea­sures that would fun­da­men­tally change the bill. Sen. Chuck Grass­ley (R-​Iowa) filed a whop­ping 77 amend­ments, while Sen. Jeff Ses­sions (R-​Ala.) filed 49.

Cruz told con­ser­v­a­tive com­men­ta­tor Sean Han­nity in April that he has “deep con­cerns” about allow­ing undoc­u­mented immi­grants to even­tu­ally become citizens.

Jeff ses­sions filed 49 Amend­ments to the gang of 8 bill? does that means he sup­ported it too?

Fox Latino:

Sup­port­ers of the bill, mainly of the part of it that would legal­ize mil­lions of undoc­u­mented immi­grants, kept a steady drum­beat in defense of the mea­sure though emails, web­sites and social media.In a press release, America’s Voice, a lead­ing national group that advo­cates for more lenient immi­gra­tion laws, sin­gled out Cruz’s anti-​citizenship amend­ment as par­tic­u­larly worrisome.

“This would not only destroy the path to cit­i­zen­ship in the Sen­ate bill — the pop­u­lar heart of an immi­gra­tion reform solu­tion — but also turn its back on 100 years of prece­dent in immi­gra­tion pol­icy,” said the release.

Appar­ently America’s voice didn’t think Cruz was a sup­porter of the bill.

Did you remem­ber that Ted Cruz launched a peti­tion against the gang of eight bill? KFYO said at the time:

We will see who has more pull in the Sen­ate right now. Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz. The immi­gra­tion bill could still be strength­ened though. Or Rubio could bail on the Gang of Eight and join with Ted Cruz. Inter­est­ing to watch.

Hmmm Cruz vs Rubio here, he also sent an open let­ter con­cern­ing it to con­gress with his objec­tions which were not just over the amend­ment:

Let’s assume that Joe’s Burger Shack has 100 employ­ees and that at Joe’s Burger Shack, with 100 employ­ees, busi­ness is doing rel­a­tively well, peo­ple are eat­ing more ham­burg­ers, and Joe decides he wants to hire 5 more peo­ple. If Joe and Joe’s Burger Shack decide they want to hire five more peo­ple, if Joe chooses to hire five U.S. cit­i­zens or if he chooses to hire five legal per­ma­nent res­i­dents – five legal immi­grants – Joe faces a penalty of $25,000 for doing so – $5,000 apiece right off his bot­tom line to the IRS. In con­trast, if Joe decides instead to hire five RPIs, who came here ille­gally among those 11 mil­lion who are here ille­gally but granted RPI legal­iza­tion under the Gang of 8 bill, Joe pays a penalty of zero dol­lars.
Let me ask a sim­ple, com­mon­sense ques­tion. In this instance, who is Joe, the small busi­ness owner, going to hire? This bill cre­ates an enor­mous incen­tive to hire those here ille­gally, and at the same time it does it by cre­at­ing a statu­tory penalty for hir­ing U.S. cit­i­zens and for hir­ing legal immi­grants. That makes no sense.

And talked to Byron York about it who wrote this:

So Cruz’s amend­ments were designed to 1) elim­i­nate the legalization-​first, security-​later struc­ture of the Gang of Eight bill while still cre­at­ing a way to legal­ize those now here ille­gally; 2) increase cer­tain types of legal immi­gra­tion; and 3) remove what might be called the moral haz­ard of reward­ing those who came here ille­gally with cit­i­zen­ship and fed­eral ben­e­fits. “In intro­duc­ing amend­ments, what I endeav­ored to do was improve that bill so that it actu­ally fixes the prob­lem,” Cruz told me. “I think an over­whelm­ing major­ity of Amer­i­cans in both par­ties wants to see our bro­ken immi­gra­tion sys­tem fixed, wants to see the prob­lem solved, the bor­der secured, and our remain­ing a nation that wel­comes and cel­e­brates legal immi­grants. Given that bipar­ti­san agree­ment out­side of Wash­ing­ton, my objec­tive was not to kill immi­gra­tion reform but to amend the Gang of Eight bill so that it actu­ally solves the prob­lem rather than mak­ing the prob­lem worse.”

Each of Cruz’s amend­ments was entirely defen­si­ble, but also entirely impos­si­ble in today’s cli­mate. The Gang of Eight bill is a painstakingly-​crafted pro­posal which Democ­rats would aban­don imme­di­ately if any of Cruz’s ideas were incor­po­rated in it. Schumer and his allies have a long list of deal-​killers, and it includes every sin­gle one of Ted Cruz’s ideas.

As Politico reported Cruz said:

“If the objec­tive is to fix the prob­lem, the Democ­rats have to be will­ing to compromise.”

They were not and Cruz talked to Rush Lim­baugh about it at the time on his show:

RUSH: Yeah, but you don’t expect that hold up, do you? I mean, within a day or two, Sen­a­tor Schumer’s gonna find a cam­era and talk about how dis­crim­i­na­tory it is. “Here we’ve just granted these peo­ple sta­tus! We’ve just allowed them to come out of the shad­ows, and it’s just uncon­scionable now that we don’t let them vote,” and so a whole new amend­ment might be made to elim­i­nate the 13 years. Is stuff like that pos­si­ble, because I don’t blame peo­ple who have a cyn­i­cal view like that.CRUZ: You’re absolutely right. That is cer­tainly com­ing. It’s why I’ve intro­duced a num­ber of amend­ments to try to fix this mess. One amend­ment that I’ve talked about today on the floor of the Sen­ate is an amend­ment to put real teeth in bor­der secu­rity — this bill has no teeth in bor­der secu­rity — to triple the bor­der patrol, to increase four­fold the heli­copters, fixed-​wing assets, tech­nol­ogy on the bor­der, to put in place a strong bio­met­ric exit-​entry system.

RUSH: Those were all voted down?

CRUZ: They have been, and crit­i­cally, the most impor­tant piece is to say, “Secure the bor­der first, before any legalization.”

And there was also this wel­fare tid­bit

CRUZ: Well, you know, if there’s one thing Wash­ing­ton knows how to do, it’s come up with bogus cost esti­mates. I mean, we all remem­ber when Oba­macare was passed and we were told it would save money, and we’ve now dis­cov­ered that it’s gonna cost tril­lions, and it’s only get­ting worse. You know, the CBO fig­ures just focus on the imme­di­ate, short-​term impact and not the long-​term impact, and they just focus on the fed­eral level. So, for exam­ple, the pro­po­nents of the Gang of Eight say that no one who is here ille­gally will be eli­gi­ble for wel­fare. In the Judi­ciary Com­mit­tee, I sub­mit­ted an amend­ment — a very sim­ple sen­ti­ment, just a cou­ple of sen­tences — that said, “No one who is here ille­gally shall be eli­gi­ble for any means-​tested wel­fare fed­eral, state, or local.” Every Demo­c­rat on the com­mit­tee and the Repub­li­can mem­bers of the Gang of Eight all voted against it.

RUSH: Yes! Exactly!

CRUZ: It was very clar­i­fy­ing. When they go and say, “There’s no wel­fare,” why do they vote against a pro­vi­sion that would make it clear?

and let’s remem­ber what was at state here:

RUSH: We’re talk­ing to Sen­a­tor Ted Cruz from Texas about the Gang of Eight’s immi­gra­tion bill. Sen­a­tor Gra­ham was on TV Sun­day, basi­cally said that we need to do this, just as you said, to get back in the good graces of the His­panic com­mu­nity. And I think you’re right, the con­sul­tants are telling Repub­li­cans — you know, you can tell some­body any­thing. The fact they believe this is what’s fright­en­ing to me. Because where does this stop, Sen­a­tor? If, for exam­ple, we gotta get back in the good graces of His­pan­ics, there­fore we have to sup­port amnesty and throw out what we believe, then what’s next for abor­tion? What’s next for gay mar­riage? What’s next for any­thing that we dis­agree with the Democ­rats on? Well, the gays don’t like you Repub­li­cans, and you’d bet­ter sign on to gay mar­riage or you’re never gonna get their sup­port. I mean, it’s the same line of think­ing and it has no end to it unless you play it all the way out and the Repub­li­can Party ceases to exist.

CRUZ: Rush, you’re exactly right. These same con­sul­tants advise on every one of those issues that Repub­li­cans give up our prin­ci­ples and become Democ­rats. You know, I’m always amused when the New York Times writes edi­to­ri­als try­ing to be help­ful to Repub­li­cans and say, “This is the way Repub­li­cans can save them­selves.” Look, the New York Times dis­agrees with us. They’re enti­tled to dis­agree with us, but it’s not like we should take their advice.

RUSH: Well, they don’t want to save us.

CRUZ: That’s exactly right. They want to destroy us.

Ted Cruz under­stood this in 2013 and still under­stands it today. Marco Rubio didn’t under­stand it then which is why he and his sup­port­ers are try­ing to rewrite his­tory on Ted Cruz today. It’s just as non­sen­si­cal as claim­ing Carl Yas­trzem­ski had a bad year in 1968 based on the stats.

Both claims are non­sense and the proof is just a google search away.

I’ll give the last words to Cruz himself

****************************************************************************
With one week to go I’m over $16,000 short of my goal for 2015.

While I’m no fan of re-​writing Ted Cruz’s record I’d really like help rewrit­ing the end­ing to this year for me so I would I ask you to please con­sider hit­ting DaTipJar.




[olimome­ter id=14]

That gets all the bills paid. Con­sider Sub­scrib­ing 100 Sub­scribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.


Choose a Sub­scrip­tion level



Addi­tion­ally our sub­scribers get our pod­cast emailed directly to them before it show up any­where else.

I know you can get the MSM for noth­ing, but that’s pretty much what most of them are worth.

9th Doctor: This station is designed to explode the minute it reaches capacity.
Rose: Didn’t anyone notice? Isn’t there someone in London checking this sort of stuff?
Margaret: We’re in Cardiff. London doesn’t care. The South Wales coast could fall into the sea and they wouldn’t notice.

Doctor Who Boomtown 2005

One of the most important things that is constantly ignored by people trying to spin event for their gain is context such as what is currently going one by people who are trying to paint Ted Cruz as supporting Illegal Immigration & gay marriage.

The best way to expose this canard is to put things in their proper context and the best way I can think of doing that is taking a page out of Bill James book and talk about baseball.

Namely Carl Yastrzemski in 1968.

For those not familiar with either Baseball in general or Carl Yastrzemski in particular he was a left fielder for the Boston Red Sox who played from 1961 till 1983. Carl played Left field replacing the immortal Ted Williams while playing the occasional game in center field right field and even third base. With the coming of Jim Rice and the DH era he became a regular 1B and occasional DH in addition to Left Field duties

He was a far superior fielder to Williams winning seven Gold gloves over 23 seasons and also leading the league in outfield assists seven times, but it was his bat that helped him to 18 all star games 3 batting titles 5 on base titles two slugging titles 3 doubles titles and in 1967 became the last player to win the triple crown Hitting .326 with 44 Home Runs and 121 Runs batted in leading in all three categories and getting the Boston Redsox to the world series for the first time in 21 years.

Yaz would retire in 1983 and be promptly voted into the baseball hall of fame along with Johnny Bench both in their first year of eligibility. Yaz snagged 94.6% the 17th highest number of ballots all time but behind Bench that year who got 96.4%.

So pretty much in the 115 years of modern baseball it’s safe to say he was one of the greatest players of all time considered by many in the top 5 left fielders behind Stan Musial, Williams, Ricky Henderson and Barry Bonds and without question in the top 10.

But for the purpose of this piece let’s focus on his 1968 season, which followed his career year.

At first glance it would seem to be a disappointment. Yaz batted .301 a full .025 point drop from his previous year. He hit 23 home runs just over half his total of the prior year, and drove in 74 runs, a far cry from the 121 of the year before.

However let’s take a closer look at these number via a few Topps baseball card backs First in RBI’s

yaz rbi 1969

As you can see Yaz’s RBI’s total was good enough to put him 8th in the league tied with rookie Reggie Jackson and just behind Brooks Robinson but not near his teammate Ken Harrelson who led the league

Well how about those 23 meager Home Runs?

yaz hr

Yet it turns out Yaz 23 Home Runs while 2nd on the Red Sox behind Ken Harrleson’s 35 was good enough for 7th in the league just behind two members of the World Series winning Detroit Tigers (Norm Cash and Bill Freeman) and behind league leader Frank Howard’s 44.

Finally let’s look at his batting avg. How did a .301 average look in 1968? Turns out pretty damn good

yaz avg1969 1

Yup he lead the league in fact not only was he was the only man in the American league to hit over over .300 that year but only one other player even managed to get to .290

yaz avg1969 2.

But the best way to judge how good those stats were are to look at the MVP voting for the year

yaz mvp 1969

Yaz’s numbers were good enough to get him 9th place in the MVP voting in the year of the pitcher. Denny McLain of the World Series Champion Detroit Tigers would win the MVP and two other pitchers would finish tied for 5th in the voting (Luis Tiant & Dave McNally) ahead of him. Yaz would be 6th among position players behind HR leader Frank Howard, RBI leader Ken Harrelson & three Detroit Tigers batters, all who had the advantage of not facing Tiger pitching that year. In fact Yaz would be 1st in a stat not yet invented wins over replacement a full 2 runs against #2 player Brooks Robinson.

So all in all, while at first glance Carl Yastrzemski’s 1968 numbers were not that impressive, particularly compared to the year before based on relative numbers that year IN CONTEXT, he was easily one of the 10 best players in the league.

Now let’s consider Ted Cruz in context on Immigration the favorite attack of the Marco Rubio team, the one that really matters, amnesty.

First remember the reason for this attack from Rubio fans is to cancel out his own problems on the issue, as was evident even as he made appearance in early 2014.

While he touched on one of the elephants in the room (that one being the statue of one next to his podium) he didn’t have a word to say about the other, his support for the Senate Amnesty bill that has been the chief cause of his freefall in NH presidential polls.

Nevertheless his speech was well received and it remains to be seen if with such a large field of excellent GOP candidates to choose from, he will be able to recover his former standing. That pretty much depends on what happens with amnesty in the house.

If the House fails to pass the Amnesty bill then I suspect he will be given a mulligan and be able to make his case.

If however the house passes a bill, and such a bill gets to the president’s desk then Republicans in NH and elsewhere are unlikely to forget, or forgive

This was the cause for the Rubio Regeneration and his decision to stand with Ted Cruz on other issues in 2013

Alas for Rubio McCain was right, he DID get the credit, or rather the blame and now in every pol he falls into the 2nd tier of GOP contenders for 2016.
The field we used for this poll is not exactly the same as April- Ayotte and Cruz replaced Susana Martinez and Rick Perry, who had received little support. But at any rate it’s clear Marco Rubio has fallen precipitously, from 25% then to his current 7% standing.

And that’s why he is sticking with Ted Cruz this time.

While some (OK me) figure Rubio is young and was played, he’s not taking any chances. As long as Ted Cruz continues to fight Marco Rubio stands at his side.

It’s an odd situation, the MSM avoids mentioning or attacking Rubio on the subject saying bluntly he needs to get himself right with the tea party, almost as if they were working under the assumption that he is faking it but more likely because they will need to convince him to vote with them again if amnesty passes the house.

And on the other end while Rubio stands with Cruz in the Senate he isn’t making appearances before conservative groups like the Tea Party. His absence from the DC rally two weeks ago was no accident. He knew if he took that stage the chorus of boos would have been the story.

 

But more importantly than the whys about Marco Rubio’s tactics, what were people saying at the time

 

But as Congress arrives at a key moment in its work to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws, the two stand at opposite ends of the debate on whether to allow the nation’s 11million unauthorized immigrants to become citizens. That divide mirrors the argument within the Republican Party over how to handle the immigration bill — and could end up propelling, or sinking, the two senators as they mull possible presidential runs in 2016.

 

That’s USA today in May of 2013 on Ted Cruz vs Marco rubio. They seem to think they weren’t on the same side, they’re not alone:

NBC Latino June 2013:

Cruz also spoke at Republican Congressman Steve King’s six hour anti-immigration reform press conference on Wednesday where he was greeted with cheers and claps as he maintained his hard stance against the bill. Congressman King was the legislator who introduced an amendment to repeal DACA and deport DREAMers.
In the Tea party rally, however, Senator Marco Rubio’s name wasn’t received so warmly at King’s rally. The once Tea-Party favorite faced a backlash from the crowd gathered in front of the Capitol. Audience members booed at any mention of Rubio’s name. Some attendees carried signs targeting the Florida Republican.

“Marco Rubio has not read his own bill” exclaimed Robert Rector, a researcher for the Heritage Foundation.

National Review notes Chuck Schumer didn’t think Cruz was for it:

Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), who suggested that Cruz’s opposition to the bill had less to do with his desire for increased border security than with his opposition to a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. (Cruz filed an amendment that would bar illegal immigrants from becoming citizens.) “I would like to point out the border security in the state of Texas is not some abstract concept,” Cruz said, before inviting Schumer and his other colleagues to come visit and see for themselves. “I believe Americans of goodwill, both Republicans and Democrats across this country want the U.S. government to get serious about securing the border.”

Let’s take a look at the vote concerning one Cruz amendment on immigration:

A Senate committee rejected an immigration-legislation amendment offered by Sen. Ted Cruz today that would have added significant security resources along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The amendment proposed tripling the number of Border Patrol agents stationed along the U.S.-Mexico border and quadrupling equipment, “including cameras, sensors, drones and helicopters,” within three years. And the 700 miles of border fence required by a 2006 law would need to be finished.

If the Department of Homeland Security failed to comply, 20 percent of its budget for the next year would be shifted as block grants to border states, giving state officials in Texas, Arizona, California and New Mexico more funds for their own border security efforts. And another penalty: a 20 percent salary cut for the Secretary of Homeland Security and all other political appointees at the department.

The amendment was voted down 13-5, with Sen. John Cornyn supporting his fellow Republican after a brief pause during the roll call.

US News and World Report:

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a newly elected Republican with a penchant for making headlines, filed an amendment that would bar undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States from ever earning citizenship…Cruz isn’t the only one throwing potential poison pills into the mix.

Poison Pill?

The New Yorker:

The long-awaited immigration-reform bill written by the haplessly named Gang of Eight in the United States Senate got buried this week, not unexpectedly, by a great mudslide of amendments—more than three hundred, at last count…Many were malicious. Senator Ted Cruz, of Texas, proposed that anyone who had ever lived illegally in the U.S. be barred for life from U.S. citizenship. The primary purpose of this overhaul, of course, is to offer the eleven million people believed to be living here illegally the chance to become legal—to give those who qualify a “pathway to citizenship.”

Malicious? Doesn’t sound like support for the bill to me

Huffpo:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), an almost certain “no” vote on the bill from the so-called gang of eight, filed an amendment on Tuesday to ban anyone who has been in the U.S. without status from becoming a citizen at any point…

Other Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have also proposed measures that would fundamentally change the bill. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) filed a whopping 77 amendments, while Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) filed 49.

Cruz told conservative commentator Sean Hannity in April that he has “deep concerns” about allowing undocumented immigrants to eventually become citizens.

Jeff sessions filed 49 Amendments to the gang of 8 bill? does that means he supported it too?

Fox Latino:

Supporters of the bill, mainly of the part of it that would legalize millions of undocumented immigrants, kept a steady drumbeat in defense of the measure though emails, websites and social media.In a press release, America’s Voice, a leading national group that advocates for more lenient immigration laws, singled out Cruz’s anti-citizenship amendment as particularly worrisome.

“This would not only destroy the path to citizenship in the Senate bill—the popular heart of an immigration reform solution—but also turn its back on 100 years of precedent in immigration policy,” said the release.

Apparently America’s voice didn’t think Cruz was a supporter of the bill.

Did you remember that Ted Cruz launched a petition against the gang of eight bill? KFYO said at the time:

We will see who has more pull in the Senate right now. Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz. The immigration bill could still be strengthened though. Or Rubio could bail on the Gang of Eight and join with Ted Cruz. Interesting to watch.

Hmmm Cruz vs Rubio here, he also sent an open letter concerning it to congress with his objections which were not just over the amendment:

 

Let’s assume that Joe’s Burger Shack has 100 employees and that at Joe’s Burger Shack, with 100 employees, business is doing relatively well, people are eating more hamburgers, and Joe decides he wants to hire 5 more people. If Joe and Joe’s Burger Shack decide they want to hire five more people, if Joe chooses to hire five U.S. citizens or if he chooses to hire five legal permanent residents–five legal immigrants–Joe faces a penalty of $25,000 for doing so–$5,000 apiece right off his bottom line to the IRS. In contrast, if Joe decides instead to hire five RPIs, who came here illegally among those 11 million who are here illegally but granted RPI legalization under the Gang of 8 bill, Joe pays a penalty of zero dollars.
Let me ask a simple, commonsense question. In this instance, who is Joe, the small business owner, going to hire? This bill creates an enormous incentive to hire those here illegally, and at the same time it does it by creating a statutory penalty for hiring U.S. citizens and for hiring legal immigrants. That makes no sense.

 

And talked to Byron York about it who wrote this:

So Cruz’s amendments were designed to 1) eliminate the legalization-first, security-later structure of the Gang of Eight bill while still creating a way to legalize those now here illegally; 2) increase certain types of legal immigration; and 3) remove what might be called the moral hazard of rewarding those who came here illegally with citizenship and federal benefits. “In introducing amendments, what I endeavored to do was improve that bill so that it actually fixes the problem,” Cruz told me. “I think an overwhelming majority of Americans in both parties wants to see our broken immigration system fixed, wants to see the problem solved, the border secured, and our remaining a nation that welcomes and celebrates legal immigrants. Given that bipartisan agreement outside of Washington, my objective was not to kill immigration reform but to amend the Gang of Eight bill so that it actually solves the problem rather than making the problem worse.”

Each of Cruz’s amendments was entirely defensible, but also entirely impossible in today’s climate. The Gang of Eight bill is a painstakingly-crafted proposal which Democrats would abandon immediately if any of Cruz’s ideas were incorporated in it. Schumer and his allies have a long list of deal-killers, and it includes every single one of Ted Cruz’s ideas.

As Politico reported Cruz said:

“If the objective is to fix the problem, the Democrats have to be willing to compromise.”

They were not and Cruz talked to Rush Limbaugh about it at the time on his show:

RUSH: Yeah, but you don’t expect that hold up, do you? I mean, within a day or two, Senator Schumer’s gonna find a camera and talk about how discriminatory it is. “Here we’ve just granted these people status! We’ve just allowed them to come out of the shadows, and it’s just unconscionable now that we don’t let them vote,” and so a whole new amendment might be made to eliminate the 13 years. Is stuff like that possible, because I don’t blame people who have a cynical view like that.CRUZ: You’re absolutely right. That is certainly coming. It’s why I’ve introduced a number of amendments to try to fix this mess. One amendment that I’ve talked about today on the floor of the Senate is an amendment to put real teeth in border security — this bill has no teeth in border security — to triple the border patrol, to increase fourfold the helicopters, fixed-wing assets, technology on the border, to put in place a strong biometric exit-entry system.

RUSH: Those were all voted down?

CRUZ: They have been, and critically, the most important piece is to say, “Secure the border first, before any legalization.”

And there was also this welfare tidbit

CRUZ: Well, you know, if there’s one thing Washington knows how to do, it’s come up with bogus cost estimates. I mean, we all remember when Obamacare was passed and we were told it would save money, and we’ve now discovered that it’s gonna cost trillions, and it’s only getting worse. You know, the CBO figures just focus on the immediate, short-term impact and not the long-term impact, and they just focus on the federal level. So, for example, the proponents of the Gang of Eight say that no one who is here illegally will be eligible for welfare. In the Judiciary Committee, I submitted an amendment — a very simple sentiment, just a couple of sentences — that said, “No one who is here illegally shall be eligible for any means-tested welfare federal, state, or local.” Every Democrat on the committee and the Republican members of the Gang of Eight all voted against it.

RUSH: Yes! Exactly!

CRUZ: It was very clarifying. When they go and say, “There’s no welfare,” why do they vote against a provision that would make it clear?

and let’s remember what was at state here:

RUSH: We’re talking to Senator Ted Cruz from Texas about the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill. Senator Graham was on TV Sunday, basically said that we need to do this, just as you said, to get back in the good graces of the Hispanic community. And I think you’re right, the consultants are telling Republicans — you know, you can tell somebody anything. The fact they believe this is what’s frightening to me. Because where does this stop, Senator? If, for example, we gotta get back in the good graces of Hispanics, therefore we have to support amnesty and throw out what we believe, then what’s next for abortion? What’s next for gay marriage? What’s next for anything that we disagree with the Democrats on? Well, the gays don’t like you Republicans, and you’d better sign on to gay marriage or you’re never gonna get their support. I mean, it’s the same line of thinking and it has no end to it unless you play it all the way out and the Republican Party ceases to exist.

CRUZ: Rush, you’re exactly right. These same consultants advise on every one of those issues that Republicans give up our principles and become Democrats. You know, I’m always amused when the New York Times writes editorials trying to be helpful to Republicans and say, “This is the way Republicans can save themselves.” Look, the New York Times disagrees with us. They’re entitled to disagree with us, but it’s not like we should take their advice.

RUSH: Well, they don’t want to save us.

CRUZ: That’s exactly right. They want to destroy us.

Ted Cruz understood this in 2013 and still understands it today. Marco Rubio didn’t understand it then which is why he and his supporters are trying to rewrite history on Ted Cruz today. It’s just as nonsensical as claiming Carl Yastrzemski had a bad year in 1968 based on the stats.

Both claims are nonsense and the proof is just a google search away.

I’ll give the last words to Cruz himself

****************************************************************************
With one week to go I’m over $16,000 short of my goal for 2015.

While I’m no fan of re-writing Ted Cruz’s record I’d really like help rewriting the ending to this year for me so I would I ask you to please consider hitting DaTipJar.




Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.


Choose a Subscription level



Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what most of them are worth.