Ted Cruz Brings It Down A Notch In Fledgling Fight With Rand Paul

[mystery-ak]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/10/Ted-Cruz-Brings-It-Down-A-Notch-In-Fledgling-Fight-With-Rand-Paul

Ted Cruz Brings It Down A Notch In Fledgling Fight With Rand Paul
by Jonathan Strong 10 Mar 2014, 4:08 PM PDT

Just as their first significant public conflict as 2016 frontrunners was starting to heat up, Ted Cruz has some nice things to say about his colleague Rand Paul.

“Rand Paul is a courageous voice for liberty, and I’m honored to call him my friend,” Cruz said in a written statement, adding that the two have agreed on the “vast majority of issues.”

Cruz was responding to Paul op-ed published at Breitbart that ripped Republicans for falsely claiming the mantle of Ronald Reagan to push their own bellicose foreign policy views.

The op-ed didn't mention Cruz by name, but came days after Cruz positioned himself between as the Reagan choice on foreign policy while calling out Paul as the dovish left flank of the GOP.

Thursday, in a speech at the “Uninvited II” national security summit, Cruz said that while Sen. John McCain is on the hawkish right flank of the party on foreign policy, and Rand Paul is at the other, left flank of the party, he's in the middle, championing a Reaganesque policy.

Cruz had made similar remarks before, but their appearance in what was potentially Cruz's most significant foreign policy speech apparently did not sit well with Paul.

“Every Republican likes to think he or she is the next Ronald Reagan. Some who say this do so for lack of their own ideas and agenda. Reagan was a great leader and President. But too often people make him into something he wasn’t in order to serve their own political purposes,” Paul wrote.

Cruz, in responding to the op-ed, is taking down the burgeoning conflict a notch with his kind words for the junior Kentucky senator. But his quote also included a firm indication that foreign policy debate between the two isn't going to fade anytime soon.

“We do not agree on everything, especially regarding foreign policy, but we have agreed on the vast majority of issues, and I am sure we will continue to do so. Substantive policy disagreements are a positive aspect of the political discourse, but in the fight for liberty, I am proud to stand with Rand,” Cruz said.

Paul is set to appear on Sean Hannity's Fox News show at 10:00pm where he will address the matter further.

The spat is the first time the two senators have had a significant public conflict since they have both emerged as major 2016 contenders.

Paul and Cruz have both worked closely on big fights in the Senate including the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill and the push to defund Obamacare that ended with a 16-day government shutdown.

[truth_seeker]

They can both get in and stay in the news a lot, by a civil but interesting back and forth over issues and topics.

Make the media cover it, by making it interesting and important.

Act like the gentlemen you are, don't call names or hate people. It will be good training and set examples for your followers and supporters.

[Oceander]

They can both get in and stay in the news a lot, by a civil but interesting back and forth over issues and topics.

Make the media cover it, by making it interesting and important.

Act like the gentlemen you are, don't call names or hate people. It will be good training and set examples for your followers and supporters.

I think they need to throw off a few sparks every now and then to make sure the media gives them attention; otherwise they simply get ignored; but they should definitely continue with taking the high road, particularly as concerns each other.

[truth_seeker]

I think they need to throw off a few sparks every now and then to make sure the media gives them attention; otherwise they simply get ignored; but they should definitely continue with taking the high road, particularly as concerns each other.

Both are capable of dignified debate, like the Senate was known for in days of olde. It might even inspire their followers to do likewise, and engage "covertable" voters to consider the GOP.

[EC]

Both are capable of dignified debate, like the Senate was known for in days of olde. It might even inspire their followers to do likewise, and engage "covertable" voters to consider the GOP.

Like Oceander said though, dignified debate rarely makes the news. I'd not be in the slightest bit surprised if there was a lot more co-operation behind the scenes than most folk expect to actually get Conservative talking points out there. If that means doing the odd fake spat, so be it.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

If that means doing the odd fake spat, so be it.

Wouldn't that be lying to the American people?  I expect my professional politicians to lie their ass off, but I thought lying was anathema to conservatives.  Like it was for Spock on Star Trek.

[EC]

Wouldn't that be lying to the American people?  I expect my professional politicians to lie their ass off, but I thought lying was anathema to conservatives.  Like it was for Spock on Star Trek.

Sadly, Spock is a fictional character. A lie to the American people, if you will. Even George Washington lied, that cherry tree thing never actually happened.

While you have an electorate that is more hooked on drama than actually bothering to understand the policies and problems involved, theatre is the only thing that makes a dent in their conscious.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Sadly, Spock is a fictional character. A lie to the American people, if you will. Even George Washington lied, that cherry tree thing never actually happened.

While you have an electorate that is more hooked on drama than actually bothering to understand the policies and problems involved, theatre is the only thing that makes a dent in their conscious.

Shocking about George Washington, but I do believe you are spot on about the actors and actresses that get elected.  You sound disappointed in the voters not spending time contemplating politics and current events.  Many voters don't have time to think.  They have jobs and families and little free time in the Obama-economy.  It's hard to blame the voters for not thinking about civics when it is barely taught in school and propagandized by Hollywood and the media. 

Now perhaps agreeing that a politician must lie to survive representing all of his constituents, and that the electorate is moved by drama, not dry recitation of the Constitution, do you see why Obama always brings up some anecdotal support for Obamacare.  From last December...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2013/12/03/president-obama-speaks-affordable-care-act#transcript

THE PRESIDENT:  Thanks to Monica, thanks to everybody standing behind me, and thanks for everybody out there who cares deeply about this issue.  Monica’s story is important because for all the day-to-day fights here in Washington around the Affordable Care Act, it’s stories like hers that should remind us why we took on this reform in the first place.

And for too long, few things left working families more vulnerable to the anxieties and insecurities of today’s economy than a broken health care system.  So we took up the fight because we believe that, in America, nobody should have to worry about going broke just because somebody in their family or they get sick.  We believe that nobody should have to choose between putting food on their kids’ table or taking them to see a doctor.  We believe we’re a better country than a country where we allow, every day, 14,000 Americans to lose their health coverage; or where every year, tens of thousands of Americans died because they didn’t have health care; or where out-of-pocket costs drove millions of citizens into poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth.  We thought we were better than that, and that’s why we took this on.  (Applause.)

That is how the speech starts.  With a real life(maybe) story of 1 person.  There no documents or solid evidence for any of the shite he said after
just a lot of emotions.  That is how rats sell their ideas.  drama.

Reagan used to do this.  http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/3.31.76.html

To Restore America, Ronald Reagan’s Campaign Address - 3/31/76

No one who lived through the Great Depression can ever look upon an unemployed person with anything by compassion.  To me, there is no greater tragedy than a breadwinner willing to work, with a job skill but unable to find a market for that job skill.  Back in those dark depression days I saw my father on Christmas eve open what he thought was a Christmas greeting from his boss.  Instead, it was the blue slip telling him he not longer had a job.  The memory of him sitting there holding that slip of paper and then saying in a half whisper, “That’s quite a Christmas present”; it will stay with me as long as I live.

You may ask where is the conservative message here?  It doesn't exist today.  This kind of message of compassion would be primaried by real conservatives.  There is nothing conservative in it.  It the personal story of an evil corporation firing his dad on Christmas eve.  In his stump speech.  Did Reagan hate business?  No it was an act to distance himself from the conservative disaster named Goldwater, and Reagan's speech of support in 64.  He had to appeal to moderates to get elected by Reagan Democrats.

[truth_seeker]

Reagan used to do this.  http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/3.31.76.html

To Restore America, Ronald Reagan’s Campaign Address - 3/31/76

You may ask where is the conservative message here?  It doesn't exist today.  This kind of message of compassion would be primaried by real conservatives.  There is nothing conservative in it.  It the personal story of an evil corporation firing his dad on Christmas eve.  In his stump speech.  Did Reagan hate business?  No it was an act to distance himself from the conservative disaster named Goldwater, and Reagan's speech of support in 64.  He had to appeal to moderates to get elected by Reagan Democrats.

It is a rare Republican that does dramatic, political story telling well.

Obama's strength is his speech writers, and his delivery. His implementation, policies are lousy, but he always feels he can talk himself out of his messes.

When evaluating political contenders on the right, it is at least as important to judge their delivery, as their content. If they can sell themselves, the ideas come almost automatically.

Reagan sold himself, and the public decided to trust his ideas. His ideas worked more than 50% of the time, and they reelected him, and then Bush I.

A more effective alternative than undramatic Romney might have stopped Obama at one term. By talking about the evil 47% Romney attacked and belittled the very voters he needed to win. A better "story" could have prevailed.