5 Reasons Ted Cruz Is Even More Dangerous Than Donald Trump

[Bigun]

5 Reasons Ted Cruz Is Even More Dangerous Than Donald Trump

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page
22 January 16
 

Five reasons Ted Cruz is even more dangerous than Donald Trump.

1. He’s more fanatical. Trump is a bully and bigot but doesn’t hew to any sharp ideological line. Cruz is a fierce ideologue: He denies the existence of man-made climate change, rejects same-sex marriage, wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, believes the 2nd amendment guarantees everyone a right to guns, doesn’t believe in a constitutional divide between church and state, favors the death penalty, opposes international agreements, embraces a confrontational foreign policy, rejects immigration reform, demands the repeal of “every blessed word of Obamacare,” and takes a strict “originalist” view of the meaning of the Constitution.

2. Cruz is a true believer. Trump has no firm principles except making money, getting attention, and gaining power. But Cruz really does detest the federal government, and has spent much of his life embracing radical right economic and political views. When Cruz said “we are facing what I consider to be the epic battle of our generation,” he wasn’t referring to jihadist terrorism but to Obamacare.

3. He’s Smarter. Trump is no slouch but he hasn’t given any indication of a sharp mind. Cruz is razer-sharp: It’s not just his degrees from Princeton and Harvard Law, along with an impressive record at Harvard, or even his winning arguments before the Supreme Court. For his entire adult life he's been a fierce debater with a intensely-logical debater’s mind.

4. He’s more disciplined and strategic. Trump is all over the place, often winging it, saying whatever pops into his mind. Cruz hews to a clear script and a carefully crafted strategy. He plays the long game (as he’s shown in Iowa). Cruz’s legal career entailed a sustained use of the courts to achieve conservative ends, and he plots his moves carefully.

5. Cruz is a loner who’s willing to destroy institutions. Trump has spent his career using the federal government and making friends with big shots. Not Cruz. Most of his Republican colleagues in the Senate detest him. And Cruz is eager to destroy: He has repeatedly crossed to the other side of the Capitol and led House Republicans toward fiscal cliffs. In the Fall of 2013, Cruz’s strident opposition to Obamacare – including a 21-hour talking marathon -- led in a significant way to the shutdown of the federal government.

Both men would be disasters for America, but Cruz would be the larger disaster.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/34762-5-reasons-ted-cruz-is-even-more-dangerous-than-donald-trump

[Bigun]

If RBR hates him them I love him!

[Jazzhead]

I was thinking the same thing - Reich is probably sealing the deal for a lot of Cruz supporters.   

[musiclady]

I'm pretty sure that Reason #1 is why he's the right guy for the job.....

[Bigun]

I'm pretty sure that Reason #1 is why he's the right guy for the job.....

Enough for sure! 

[EC]

Dangerous for who, exactly?

I'm seeing no downsides here.

[Bigun]

Dangerous for who, exactly?

I'm seeing no downsides here.

Dangerous for leftists and the inside the belt way bastard of all stripes!

[massadvj]

I could take the exact same article, change the headline to "5 Reasons Why Cruz is Better Than Trump" and it makes an excellent case.  Of course, I would need to change the byline.

[NavyCanDo]

I like Cruz and Rubio but for different reasons.

Cruz clearly the most consistent conservative between the top three (Trump being the least consistent out of the entire pack of candidates Kasich excluded). Cruz is smart on his feet, and has an oratory memory, which is mush like a photographic memory, but he remembers is livid detail things he hears. A good thing to have. 

Rubio in my opinion would be more electable in the General because of his youth, a beautiful family, and his remarkable speaking ability. He will reach swing voters far easier that Cruz. 

I would be happy to vote for either. Or if Trump is the nominee, God forbid,  write-in one of those names.

[Bigun]

I like Cruz and Rubio but for different reasons.

Cruz clearly the most consistent conservative between the top three (Trump being the least consistent out of the entire pack of candidates Kasich excluded). Cruz is smart on his feet, and has an oratory memory, which is mush like a photographic memory, but he remembers is livid detail things he hears. A good thing to have. 

Rubio in my opinion would be more electable in the General because of his youth, a beautiful family, and his remarkable speaking ability. He will reach swing voters far easier that Cruz. 

I would be happy to vote for either. Or if Trump is the nominee, God forbid,  write-in one of those names.

Personally I'm up to here with this electability crap. We've heard it every election for fourty years and it's still BS! The evidence is abundantly clear by now that the ONLY time we win is when we nominate a CONSERVATIVE!!!

[Scottftlc]

Personally I'm up to here with this electability crap. We've heard it every election for fourty years and it's still BS! The evidence is abundantly clear by now that the ONLY time we win is when we nominate a CONSERVATIVE!!!

In the entire history of the Republican party (from 1860), they've only nominated a conservative three times (Coolidge in 1922, Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1980).  That's not much track record to go by.  Even relating the most recent of these to 2016 America is a tough stretch.  Perhaps it would be better to say: Let's try a conservative because that'd be something different?

[Bigun]

In the entire history of the Republican party (from 1860), they've only nominated a conservative three times (Coolidge in 1922, Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1980).  That's not much track record to go by.  Even relating the most recent of these to 2016 America is a tough stretch.  Perhaps it would be better to say: Let's try a conservative because that'd be something different?

Ronald Reagan ran as a Conservative and called himself a Conservative.  So did G.W. so I'm not buying the not much of a track record lions.

Four out of five is pretty darned good the way I see it.

[massadvj]

Ronald Reagan ran as a Conservative and called himself a Conservative.  So did G.W. so I'm not buying the not much of a track record lions.

Four out of five is pretty darned good the way I see it.

GW called himself a "compassionate conservative."  That was like Romney calling himself a "severe" conservative.  Once they start putting adjectives on there, it's a dead giveaway they aren't true ones.

[Carling]

GW called himself a "compassionate conservative."  That was like Romney calling himself a "severe" conservative.  Once they start putting adjectives on there, it's a dead giveaway they aren't true ones.

I was about to say the same thing.  GWB also had a long history of advocating amnesty, so I wasn't as surprised as others when he and the GOPe tried to shove amnesty down our throats during Dubya's second term.

[Scottftlc]

Ronald Reagan ran as a Conservative and called himself a Conservative.  So did G.W. so I'm not buying the not much of a track record liine.

I listed Reagan amongst the three.  GW I would argue strenuously against - the only aspect of his domestic platform that was conservative was a tax cut...that was implemented with borrowed money.  His next major domestic issues were prescription drug coverage, Medicaid expansion and the further imposition of the federal government into the management of education. His international program ended up being based on nation-building and democratizing Islam.  Beyond the sheer insanity of the latter, those are not conservative positions.  He may, like his father, mouthed conservatism, but he was actually more of a charlatan than a conservative.

[Scottftlc]

Ronald Reagan ran as a Conservative and called himself a Conservative.  So did G.W. so I'm not buying the not much of a track record lions.

Four out of five is pretty darned good the way I see it.

Four out of what five?  Even if you count Reagan twice and strike yourself deaf, dumb and blind to call W Bush a conservative, you still end up with four out of nine???  Reagan was almost four decades ago...do you think this is the same country as it was four decades ago?

[massadvj]

I listed Reagan amongst the three.  GW I would argue strenuously against - the only aspect of his domestic platform that was conservative was a tax cut...that was implemented with borrowed money.  His next major domestic issues were prescription drug coverage, Medicaid expansion and the further imposition of the federal government into the management of education. His international program ended up being based on nation-building and democratizing Islam.  Beyond the sheer insanity of the latter, those are not conservative positions.  He may, like his father, mouthed conservatism, but he was actually more of a charlatan than a conservative.

Absolutely.  And let's not forget Harriet Miers, the only time conservatives were able to constrain him.  Also, he signed Campaign Finance Reform.

[Scottftlc]

Absolutely.  And let's not forget Harriet Miers, the only time conservatives were able to constrain him.  Also, he signed Campaign Finance Reform.

When the democratization of Islam started going south, he started signing everything the Democrats put in front of him to keep his foreign entanglements from destroying him.  Not saying that he wouldn't have on his own supported those things...

[Jazzhead]

  He may, like his father, mouthed conservatism, but he was actually more of a charlatan than a conservative.

It sounds like this may have been a concern of yours regarding GWB.  Why not with respect to Trump?   Why isn't he a charlatan too?   Why do your powers of discernment apparently evaporate when it comes to Trump's 30-year record of supporting liberals and liberal causes?   

[Bigun]

I listed Reagan amongst the three.  GW I would argue strenuously against - the only aspect of his domestic platform that was conservative was a tax cut...that was implemented with borrowed money.  His next major domestic issues were prescription drug coverage, Medicaid expansion and the further imposition of the federal government into the management of education. His international program ended up being based on nation-building and democratizing Islam.  Beyond the sheer insanity of the latter, those are not conservative positions.  He may, like his father, mouthed conservatism, but he was actually more of a charlatan than a conservative.

GW was somewhat a victim of circumstances but I'm certainly nt going to try and make the argument that he was conservative because he wasn't.  He did draw a clear line between himself an the leftist he ran against and won.  I think Ted Cruz is going to do the same.

[Paladin]

Reich's "indictment" of Cruz actually provides 5 excellent reasons to support him.

Thanks, Bobby.

[Scottftlc]

It sounds like this may have been a concern of yours regarding GWB.  Why not with respect to Trump?   Why isn't he a charlatan too?   Why do your powers of discernment apparently evaporate when it comes to Trump's 30-year record of supporting liberals and liberal causes?   

I actually believe Trump is far more honest than most politicians (I hold career politicians in the least regard of all humankind).  What the difference is for me from many here on this forum is that I have given up on conservatism as an ideology that can work in America.  I no longer believe it is possible to achieve conservative goals in America - it has been rejected outright by such a large portion of our population in 2016 that even socialism straight up has more support than conservatism.  So I am looking now outside ideology to someone who I feel has the pragmatic ability to achieve the one or two prime things that I am looking for - rebuilding strength and some semblance of security and controlling the flood of immigration (and refugees).  If we got that, we might survive.  I want a wrecking ball because as I look around, I see little today in America worth preserving.

(An aside, even under Reagan conservatism never won the day except in a very limited manner.  Reagan governed more pragmatically than as a conservative ideologue.  He has one primary goal - to rebuild American military might and defeat the Soviet Union.  He compromised in most other areas to achieve that goal.)

[Scottftlc]

GW was somewhat a victim of circumstances but I'm certainly nt going to try and make the argument that he was conservative because he wasn't.  He did draw a clear line between himself an the leftist he ran against and won.  I think Ted Cruz is going to do the same.

Whatever you do, don't put Cruz and GW in the same sentence!  Ack!

[Jazzhead]

I want a wrecking ball because as I look around, I see little today in America worth preserving.

Not even the Constitution?   Because Trump, like Obama before him, threatens to take the wrecking ball to the balance of powers and govern like an overlord.  That he would do so in pursuit of your policy preferences does not make it right. 

Two wrongs do not make a right.   

 

I actually believe Trump is far more honest than most politicians

Huh?  Because he doesn't even make a pretense of being honest?  You know as well as I that the positions he espouses today are diametrically opposite to what he's advocated in the past.   How does that pass the smell test for "honesty"?   He's honest because he admits he'll say whatever his followers want him to say?   

I know I can't change your mind, but I'm sure you can see why so many of us believe Trump to be profoundly dangerous.   

[Scottftlc]

Not even the Constitution?   Because Trump, like Obama before him, threatens to take the wrecking ball to the balance of powers and govern like an overlord.  That he would do so in pursuit of your policy preferences does not make it right. 

Two wrongs do not make a right.   

The Constitution is not adhered to now.  I see no reason to believe that in the future it will be less fungible than it is even today.  Balance of powers?  Where does that occur? We have a Republican Congress that is for all intents and purposes meaningless.  Witness the last omnibus budget.  With Trump, you will get someone that will at least shake up the power structure.  I'm willing to take that risk because there isn't another who is bold enough to actually have a shot at success...and by success I don't mean just getting elected.