The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: truth_seeker on February 20, 2014, 03:16:51 am
-
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/19/conservative-legend-thomas-sowell-turns-on-ted-cruz/
Conservative legend Thomas Sowell turns on Ted Cruz 5:14 PM 02/19/2014
A leading tea party intellectual has turned against the tea party movement’s favorite senator.
Economist Thomas Sowell, who has long been revered among conservatives, has slammed Sen. Ted Cruz in his last two columns, accusing the Texas Republican of being self-serving and comparing him to President Obama.
“Freshman Senator Ted Cruz says many things that need to be said and says them well,” Sowell wrote in his syndicated column Tuesday, before going on to compare Cruz to President Obama. “Moreover, some of these things are what many, if not most, Americans believe wholeheartedly. Yet we need to remember that the same was true of another freshman Senator, just a relatively few years ago, who parlayed his ability to say things that resonated with the voters into two terms in the White House.”
Sowell continued, suggesting Cruz is only looking out for himself.
“Senator Ted Cruz has not yet reached the point where he can make policy, rather than just make political trouble,” Sowell wrote. “But there are already disquieting signs that he is looking out for Ted Cruz — even if that sets back the causes he claims to be serving.”
Sowell seems to have been most recently irked by Cruz’s actions surrounding the Senate vote to increase the debt ceiling. Cruz threatened to filibuster, forcing several Republicans to either vote for cloture or force a fight over the debt ceiling increase. Republican leaders were seeking to avoid such a politically-risky fight and another possible government shutdown in order to focus on the failures of Obamacare heading in to the 2014 midterm elections.
“Senator Cruz’s filibuster last year got the Republicans blamed for shutting down the government — and his threatened filibuster this year forced several Republican Senators to jeopardize their own reelection prospects by voting to impose cloture, to prevent Cruz from repeating his self-serving grandstand play of last year,” Sowell wrote in his Wednesday column. “The Republicans need every vote they can get in the Senate — plus additional votes by defeating some Democrats who are running for the Senate this fall. It can be a very close call. Jeopardizing the reelection of current Republican Senators is an act of utter irresponsibility, a high risk with zero benefits to anyone except Ted Cruz — and the Democrats.”
In his Wednesday column, Sowell also lashed out against the so-called Republican establishment.
“However unjustified Senator Cruz’s actions, the very fact that a freshman Senator can so quickly gain so many supporters, with so much enthusiasm, ought to be a loud warning to the Republican establishment that they have long been a huge disappointment to a wide range of Republican voters and supporters,” he wrote.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this guys cred and posting history pass the litmus test
-
Guess Daily Caller needs to read part II posted here earlier today.
-
"The Republicans need every vote they can get in the Senate — plus additional votes by defeating some Democrats who are running for the Senate this fall. It can be a very close call. Jeopardizing the reelection of current Republican Senators is an act of utter irresponsibility, a high risk with zero benefits to anyone except Ted Cruz — and the Democrats."
Sowell has Cruz pegged perfectly.
But, look for him to be labeled a RINO too and smeared as a past-his-prime commentator.
Krauthammer, Will, Sowell.... the list of "traitors" grows and grows.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/19/conservative-legend-thomas-sowell-turns-on-ted-cruz/
“Senator Cruz’s filibuster last year got the Republicans blamed for shutting down the government — and his threatened filibuster this year forced several Republican Senators to jeopardize their own reelection prospects by voting to impose cloture, to prevent Cruz from repeating his self-serving grandstand play of last year,” Sowell wrote in his Wednesday column.
'There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fo... ... Fool me — you can't get fooled again.” - Dubya
We got your playbook Sen Cruz
-
Also from Sowell:
Cruz, R-Texas, has not yet reached the point where he can make policy, rather than just make political trouble. But there are already disquieting signs that he is looking out for Cruz – even if that sets back the causes he claims to be serving.
Those causes are not being served when Cruz undermines the election chances of the only political party that has any chance of undoing the disasters that Obama has already inflicted on the nation – and forestalling new disasters that are visible on the horizon.
-
I would never call Sowell RINO. I would simply disagree and point out he's somewhat wrong on Cruz. Like any human – I'm just guessing here – Sowell may fall slightly short of perfection on this particular opinion.
-
I would never call Sowell RINO. I would simply disagree and point out he's somewhat wrong on Cruz. Like any human – I'm just guessing here – Sowell may fall slightly short of perfection on this particular opinion.
Agreed there...
It sure is an indication of the divide.
-
I respect Dr. Sowell, totally. Enough that I won't reject anything he says out of hand.
On the one hand, Ted Cruz is pretty brash and impatient.
On the other hand, so is half of the country.
On the gripping hand, two very smart people are disagreeing.
-
“However unjustified Senator Cruz’s actions, the very fact that a freshman Senator can so quickly gain so many supporters, with so much enthusiasm, ought to be a loud warning to the Republican establishment that they have long been a huge disappointment to a wide range of Republican voters and supporters,” he wrote.
This, is the other side of the story. I don't think the Republican old guard have a clue how unpopular they are. The tradition of both parties is they chose their party whips, leaders,speaker. It is a pecking order of major ass kissing and money flowing. The,' it's HIS turn,' mantra is as old as they are. They work for us. Just because they found out that serving is a lucrative career ( with insider trading slush funds,- aside from their six-figure salaries- most could live off of AND to boot WE pay their car notes! ) does not mean- they should be allowed- to quit serving the American people. If we returned to government of this stature serving and having in real life outside jobs- without conflict of interest-
Maybe just maybe it is a start of getting the beast calmed that has become government in this role. There is also absolutely no reasoning in why the older ones don't retire. What ever happened to term limits and did they ever vote on no more insider trading that we would go to jail for if we tried?
-
I would never call Sowell RINO. I would simply disagree and point out he's somewhat wrong on Cruz. Like any human – I'm just guessing here – Sowell may fall slightly short of perfection on this particular opinion.
Yes, it would appear some folks don't understand that civil people - whether Mr. Sowell or posters here - can disagree without engaging in name-calling and hyperbole.
-
Check out the comments on the DC's post of this article on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/DailyCaller/posts/10152062399463743
This goes to show there is very much a disconnect between those who are in politics (commentators, politicians, reporters, consultants, etc) and the real people out here paying our taxes. I respect Sowell a lot but what he is saying is to continue to play the game it has always been played. He is looking at the game from the game board using the game's rules. We the people are sick of the game, period. The political class wants to keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results.
-
I respect Dr. Sowell, totally. Enough that I won't reject anything he says out of hand.
On the one hand, Ted Cruz is pretty brash and impatient.
On the other hand, so is half of the country.
On the gripping hand, two very smart people are disagreeing.
Cruz is doing exactly what he promised to do in his campaign. It should be no surprise to anyone. Your point is interesting though because what Cruz is doing is being a representative of the people who elected him and their voice in Washington. Isn't that how it is supposed to work? He is the brash and impatient voice of the people he promised to be.
-
Cruz is doing exactly what he promised to do in his campaign. It should be no surprise to anyone. Your point is interesting though because what Cruz is doing is being a representative of the people who elected him and their voice in Washington. Isn't that how it is supposed to work? He is the brash and impatient voice of the people he promised to be.
It is how it is supposed to work but rarely does.
One of the things that bugs me is people complaining that a Rep or Senator is not a "perfect conservative." It really ticks me off - he may be your Senator, but he's also the Senator for the Dem next door.
-
Dr. Sowell is taking the pragmatic approach and is concerned that shining light on the vampires may hurt their reelection chances.
I believe that in all other respects, he agrees with Cruz.
-
Also from Sowell:
Those causes are not being served when Cruz undermines the election chances of the only political party that has any chance of undoing the disasters that Obama has already inflicted on the nation – and forestalling new disasters that are visible on the horizon.
There's that "rub" again!! Maybe a great deal of the differences of opinion that we see here of late has to do with each of our views of that "chance." I agree that there is a "chance" but also personally believe that it is slim to none at this point. And I don't say that without great contemplation and pain.
-
Check out the comments on the DC's post of this article on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/DailyCaller/posts/10152062399463743
This goes to show there is very much a disconnect between those who are in politics (commentators, politicians, reporters, consultants, etc) and the real people out here paying our taxes. I respect Sowell a lot but what he is saying is to continue to play the game it has always been played. He is looking at the game from the game board using the game's rules. We the people are sick of the game, period. The political class wants to keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results.
Worth repeating
-
This, is the other side of the story. I don't think the Republican old guard have a clue how unpopular they are. The tradition of both parties is they chose their party whips, leaders,speaker. It is a pecking order of major ass kissing and money flowing. The,' it's HIS turn,' mantra is as old as they are. They work for us. Just because they found out that serving is a lucrative career ( with insider trading slush funds,- aside from their six-figure salaries- most could live off of AND to boot WE pay their car notes! ) does not mean- they should be allowed- to quit serving the American people. If we returned to government of this stature serving and having in real life outside jobs- without conflict of interest-
Maybe just maybe it is a start of getting the beast calmed that has become government in this role. There is also absolutely no reasoning in why the older ones don't retire. What ever happened to term limits and did they ever vote on no more insider trading that we would go to jail for if we tried?
We have term limits. They're called "elections."
-
Check out the comments on the DC's post of this article on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/DailyCaller/posts/10152062399463743
This goes to show there is very much a disconnect between those who are in politics (commentators, politicians, reporters, consultants, etc) and the real people out here paying our taxes. I respect Sowell a lot but what he is saying is to continue to play the game it has always been played. He is looking at the game from the game board using the game's rules. We the people are sick of the game, period. The political class wants to keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results.
This. Very much so!!
:thumbsup3:
-
We have term limits. They're called "elections."
Yes...and we are taking advantage of that right now!
-
Yes, it would appear some folks don't understand that civil people - whether Mr. Sowell or posters here - can disagree without engaging in name-calling and hyperbole.
I don't understand why some people seem to tailor their posts to elicit the strongest negative reaction they can get. It's textbook troll behavior.
I like Cruz's direct approach. I have reserved judgement on Cruz because he does have earmarks of someone who is self serving, not necessarily working for the greater good.
Unfortunately for me, I hate Democrats, and hate Republicans just a little less.
-
It is how it is supposed to work but rarely does.
One of the things that bugs me is people complaining that a Rep or Senator is not a "perfect conservative." It really ticks me off - he may be your Senator, but he's also the Senator for the Dem next door.
Principals and sworn duty are not to be compromised regardless of what any members of your constituency may think, believe, or want. If I am a House Rep (or Senator) would you expect me to represent the interests of either the avowed anarchist that wishes to destroy the government in total or the intense social conservative that wishes to mold the government into a theocracy, just because they reside in my district? Certainly not in either case. We need representatives that uphold their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and operate within in its clearly described bounds, and show fidelity to the principals that they espoused to earn election.
It may bug you, but that is the it was supposed to work.
-
I like Cruz's direct approach. I have reserved judgement on Cruz because he does have earmarks of someone who is self serving, not necessarily working for the greater good.
Unfortunately for me, I hate Democrats, and hate Republicans just a little less.
I'm a believer in the "80% friend" quote attributed to Ronald Reagan. I don't know of any elected official or candidate with whom I'm 100% in step (except myself, and I'm not running this year!).
-
Principals and sworn duty are not to be compromised regardless of what any members of your constituency may think, believe, or want. If I am a House Rep (or Senator) would you expect me to represent the interests of either the avowed anarchist that wishes to destroy the government in total or the intense social conservative that wishes to mold the government into a theocracy, just because they reside in my district? Certainly not in either case. We need representatives that uphold their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and operate within in its clearly described bounds, and show fidelity to the principals that they espoused to earn election.
It may bug you, but that is the it was supposed to work.
That is the touchstone. Do they keep their word and guard their duties.
However - I would expect Reps to meet with any constituent and listen to them. And not give them bullshit answers, but give them the respect of being honest. "No, I can't push this, and this is why," or "Thank you for telling me about this. It will be dealt with."
-
We have term limits. They're called "elections."
Yes...and we are taking advantage of that right now!
And myst, if I may be so bold as to speak for others here, we are desperately trying to change the makeup of "the only other political party that has a chance." (And, darn it, we could use a little help here from those that agree with our principles and goals but disagree with our "tactics")
-
That is the touchstone. Do they keep their word and guard their duties.
However - I would expect Reps to meet with any constituent and listen to them. And not give them bullshit answers, but give them the respect of being honest. "No, I can't push this, and this is why," or "Thank you for telling me about this. It will be dealt with."
No quibble with that at all. Respect and honesty, as you point out.
-
Principals and sworn duty are not to be compromised regardless of what any members of your constituency may think, believe, or want. If I am a House Rep (or Senator) would you expect me to represent the interests of either the avowed anarchist that wishes to destroy the government in total or the intense social conservative that wishes to mold the government into a theocracy, just because they reside in my district? Certainly not in either case. We need representatives that uphold their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and operate within in its clearly described bounds, and show fidelity to the principals that they espoused to earn election.
It may bug you, but that is the it was supposed to work.
Hear Here!!!!
There it is in a nutshell! Can't be said any better!
-
That is the touchstone. Do they keep their word and guard their duties.
However - I would expect Reps to meet with any constituent and listen to them. And not give them bullshit answers, but give them the respect of being honest. "No, I can't push this, and this is why," or "Thank you for telling me about this. It will be dealt with."
Good luck with that! Most of them are masters at quickly sizing you up and telling you what you want to hear and CALLING that the truth! The sad fact is that is what MOST of their constituents WANT them to do!
It's easy for anyone to see what happens to someone who actually tries to do as you suggest in today's Washington! All you need do pay attention to what they have attempted to do to Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and a very few others!!
-
I don't understand why some people seem to tailor their posts to elicit the strongest negative reaction they can get. It's textbook troll behavior.
I like Cruz's direct approach. I have reserved judgement on Cruz because he does have earmarks of someone who is self serving, not necessarily working for the greater good.
Unfortunately for me, I hate Democrats, and hate Republicans just a little less.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive. He can be self-serving and working toward the greater good because he believes the greater good is promoting a system that most benefits the individual, including himself. I am one of those who don't believe true altruism exists. Everything we do is self serving in one form or another whether it is for accolades, acceptance, reward, or creating a society you personally want to live in. I am more wary of someone that completely denies they have a self-interest motivation because they are either lying or deluded.
-
I help people with their back pain. I darn well better get paid for it or I won't be doing it much longer!
-
Those two things are not mutually exclusive. He can be self-serving and working toward the greater good because he believes the greater good is promoting a system that most benefits the individual, including himself. I am one of those who don't believe true altruism exists. Everything we do is self serving in one form or another whether it is for accolades, acceptance, reward, or creating a society you personally want to live in. I am more wary of someone that completely denies they have a self-interest motivation because they are either lying or deluded.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow citizens.”
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, vol.1, p.16
-
From the DC comments:
Syrilda Davidson Gallaway I bear witness to what you are saying,LISA MORTON PINNELL. Senator Ted Cruz ,did what he did because 3.2 million people signed a petition,to #RepealObamacare ,and I was one of them ,he kept us informed on what could happen and ask us and kept us informed all the way. 3.2 million people witnessed the lies and who told them,it also allows us to see and discern his enemies .He gave it his all ,which could have led to his Political death.Because we encouraged him to do it.We know those who call him self serving , is not able to see the TRUTH,those who call us Hero Worshipper's ,cannot see the TRUTH .and we know Who the Blind are following "THE BLIND " go ahead on drive off that cliff . listen to those sound bites, and the propaganda ,OR you can get behind him and help him ,get our Country back on track . the future is in your hands too!! What are you going to do about it ???
Unlike · 1 · 10 minutes ago
Jason Kufs His logic is silly. I love Sowell but I disagree with his logic. He is basically saying Cruz is right about the establishment but shouldn't do anything about it or he stands out.
Unlike · Reply · 20 · 14 hours ago
-
" I love Sowell but I disagree with his logic. He is basically saying Cruz is right about the establishment but shouldn't do anything about it or he stands out."
DITTO.
That is the cruxt of this entire article in a nutshell.
-
I liken Ted Cruz to Paul Revere. Where would my ancestors be today were it not for people like Revere to sound the warning. Cruz is trying to wake people up and some are determined to slumber along withthe same-ole same-ole rather than consider it is time for new leadership..... if McConnell was CEO of a major company he would have already received a golden handshake - Boehner, too.
-
I don't understand why some people seem to tailor their posts to elicit the strongest negative reaction they can get. It's textbook troll behavior.
I like Cruz's direct approach. I have reserved judgement on Cruz because he does have earmarks of someone who is self serving, not necessarily working for the greater good.
Unfortunately for me, I hate Democrats, and hate Republicans just a little less.
It's the new "Reality TV" standard for American life. Affectation and hyperbole abound.
-
" I love Sowell but I disagree with his logic. He is basically saying Cruz is right about the establishment but shouldn't do anything about it or he stands out."
DITTO.
That is the cruxt of this entire article in a nutshell.
Exactly and the person that started this thread changed the title to suit their views.
The correct title is
Republican Party Needs to Master the Message
The subject of the article can be summed up with this...
The Republican establishment has more than a tactical deficiency, however. They seem to have no principle that they offer or follow with any consistency. Their lack of articulation may be just a reflection of that lack of principle. It is hard to get to the point when you have no point to get to.
Ted Cruz filled a void. But the Republican establishment created the void.
-
Exactly and the person that started this thread changed the title to suit their views.
That is FALSE. The title was NOT changed.
Conservative legend Thomas Sowell turns on Ted Cruz
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/19/conservative-legend-thomas-sowell-turns-on-ted-cruz/#ixzz2tyuHSKMG
See for your self.
-
That is FALSE. The title was NOT changed.
Conservative legend Thomas Sowell turns on Ted Cruz
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/19/conservative-legend-thomas-sowell-turns-on-ted-cruz/#ixzz2tyuHSKMG
See for your self.
The original article was at NRO. Daily Caller changed the title to turn what wasn't a hit piece into a hit piece. The original was posted here a few days earlier and got no comments.. which goes to show why the media uses headlines to manipulate us.
-
That is FALSE. The title was NOT changed.
Conservative legend Thomas Sowell turns on Ted Cruz
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/19/conservative-legend-thomas-sowell-turns-on-ted-cruz/#ixzz2tyuHSKMG
See for your self.
My bad. I apologize. It was THE DAILY CALLER that changed the title.
-
The original article was at NRO. Daily Caller changed the title to turn what wasn't a hit piece into a hit piece. The original was posted here a few days earlier and got no comments.. which goes to show why the media uses headlines to manipulate us.
What Dr. Sowell said is the substance of the matter. Changing the title doesn't alter his words. I did not change the title.
-
Wow, you are hard headed. I apologized. Now don't go reporting me, ya hear?
No one was blaming you anymore and I apologized. The article you posted had that title but there is a distinct difference in...
Conservative legend Thomas Sowell turns on Ted Cruz
and
Republican Party Needs to Master the Message
AGAIN No one is blaming you.
-
The same articles especially opinion pieces have a tendency to have different titles at different sites...this is one reason we have a lot of duplicate articles.
-
I would never call Sowell RINO. I would simply disagree and point out he's somewhat wrong on Cruz. Like any human – I'm just guessing here – Sowell may fall slightly short of perfection on this particular opinion.
:hands: :hands: :hands:
-
I liken Ted Cruz to Paul Revere. Where would my ancestors be today were it not for people like Revere to sound the warning. Cruz is trying to wake people up and some are determined to slumber along withthe same-ole same-ole rather than consider it is time for new leadership..... if McConnell was CEO of a major company he would have already received a golden handshake - Boehner, too.
:silly:
Move over Sarah Palin, there is a new conservative god in town!
Ted Cruz is a solid conservative. He's also an excellent self-promoter. I said it before, if he runs in 2016, everything he's been doing so far in office has been for show.
-
:silly:
Move over Sarah Palin, there is a new conservative god in town!
Ted Cruz is a solid conservative. He's also an excellent self-promoter. I said it before, if he runs in 2016, everything he's been doing so far in office has been for show.
How is any politician not self-promoting?
-
:silly:
Move over Sarah Palin, there is a new conservative god in town!
Ted Cruz is a solid conservative. He's also an excellent self-promoter. I said it before, if he runs in 2016, everything he's been doing so far in office has been for show.
And you know this?? How?
-
Oh, yes. All aspirants to the presidency are insincere. Coveting the job is prima facie evidence of insincerity, don't you know? And anything they do, any action they take on the way to throwing their hat in the ring is done for show and is simply self-serving.
It couldn't possibly be that someone like Cruz surveyed the political landscape, saw no one willing to take the hard stands and fight the good fight, and decided to do something about it.
-
Move over Sarah Palin, there is a new conservative god in town!
Still looking for anyone who deemed Palin or Cruz a god. It wasn't anyone here.
-
Oh, yes. All aspirants to the presidency are insincere. Coveting the job is prima facie evidence of insincerity, don't you know? And anything they do, any action they take on the way to throwing their hat in the ring is done for show and is simply self-serving.
It couldn't possibly be that someone like Cruz surveyed the political landscape, saw no one willing to take the hard stands and fight the good fight, and decided to do something about it.
You could be right.
On the other hand, those of us who believe Cruz has astutely figured out that he has a pathway to a presidential run by taking hard stands that will draw support and cash. His is the kind of personality that is immune to working with others or really caring what anyone else thinks of his stance.
That can be courageous. It can also reflect someone who doesn't evaluate consequences.
-
You could be right.
On the other hand, those of us who believe Cruz has astutely figured out that he has a pathway to a presidential run by taking hard stands that will draw support and cash. His is the kind of personality that is immune to working with others or really caring what anyone else thinks of his stance.
That can be courageous. It can also reflect someone who doesn't evaluate consequences.
He may be abrasive. But he's already been proven correct regarding the pitfalls and expense of Obamacare. It's how leaders are born, Sink. It's how respect is earned....whether it's the Senate or an internet forum.
That 'disastrous' filibuster speech is going to catapult him right into the White House. That's his strategy. So what?
To call those motives phony and suspect is ridiculous.
All he has to do continue to correctly prognosticate. And with this bunch, it's like picking money off the floor. Sooner or later even the LIV is going to know it's time to run away from Communism.
Cultural icon Howard Stern used the word Communists today. All it takes is one........
-
That 'disastrous' filibuster speech is going to catapult him right into the White House. That's his strategy. So what?
I hope so, because his future in the Senate, in terms of being an agent of change, is basically nil at this point. Neither the Dems nor any of the other GOP senators can ever trust the guy again. It's probably best if he does run for President. It's what flame-throwing opportunists like Cruz do best.
-
I hope so, because his future in the Senate, in terms of being an agent of change, is basically nil at this point. Neither the Dems nor any of the other GOP senators can ever trust the guy again. It's probably best if he does run for President. It's what flame-throwing opportunists like Cruz do best.
Hate to burst your idea of reality, but we're only one event away from a knock on the door in the middle of the night.
I want a flame-throwing opportunist....if that's the vessel in which to get our message out there.
-
Hate to burst your idea of reality, but we're only one event away from a knock on the door in the middle of the night.
I want a flame-throwing opportunist....if that's the vessel in which to get our message out there.
:thumbsup2:
-
He may be abrasive. But he's already been proven correct regarding the pitfalls and expense of Obamacare. It's how leaders are born, Sink. It's how respect is earned....whether it's the Senate or an internet forum.
That 'disastrous' filibuster speech is going to catapult him right into the White House. That's his strategy. So what?
To call those motives phony and suspect is ridiculous.
All he has to do continue to correctly prognosticate. And with this bunch, it's like picking money off the floor. Sooner or later even the LIV is going to know it's time to run away from Communism.
Cultural icon Howard Stern used the word Communists today. All it takes is one........
I love you like a brother, DC, but you couldn't be more wrong about Ted Cruz. "Green Eggs and Ham" is not going to catapult anybody into the White House.
-
I love you like a brother, DC, but you couldn't be more wrong about Ted Cruz. "Green Eggs and Ham" is not going to catapult anybody into the White House.
Thanks, buddy! I guess we'll have to wait and see.
I don't see anybody else stepping up and publicly crying "foul"....and that bugs the hell out of me.
-
Thanks, buddy! I guess we'll have to wait and see.
I don't see anybody else stepping up and publicly crying "foul"....and that bugs the hell out of me.
Plenty of others are standing up and crying "foul."
They aren't begging for the media spotlight as a "maverick," though.
-
If Ted Cruz ends up as more than a footnote in presidential history, I will literally eat a Tea Party hat. As it is, he already has made more of an impact on another footnote in history, Sarah Palin.
-
I liken Ted Cruz to Paul Revere. Where would my ancestors be today were it not for people like Revere to sound the warning. Cruz is trying to wake people up and some are determined to slumber along withthe same-ole same-ole rather than consider it is time for new leadership..... if McConnell was CEO of a major company he would have already received a golden handshake - Boehner, too.
Sen Cruz has not woken anyone up. Do you think the 25% of America that agrees with him are new converts? He is telling them what they want to hear. That somehow an ideologically pure, fight for the sake of fighting, GOP will so enthrall the masses that they will wake from their booze, drugs, and television that they will vote GOP? At the same time he is pushing away voters and pushing our minority party away from a majority. That is the wrong direction to be leading.
Sen Cruz thought the American people would rise up and demand an end to Obamacare when he shutdown the government. The proof that he is responsible can be heard in the call for clarification of the end game by Charles Krauthammer on the Laura Ingraham show on Oct 10th.
Krauthammer says "These are the generals (Lee and Cruz) who lead people into the Battle of [the] Little Bighorn and then go home and have lunch and leave the troops out there? Where are they? Where are the generals? What’s their strategy to get abolition of Obamacare?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUZjtKiZhcc
This was Cruz's strategy. Force Obama to sign a CR that doesn't fund Obamacare. Knowing he wouldn't. We all knew he wouldn't because he told us that many times. The SCF announced in bold letters the battle would begin on Oct 1st when they put up their silly website showing how few Republicans were with Cruz and Lee. Cruz argued it had to be Oct 1 because it was the last chance to keep Obamacare from becoming a fixture of the American economy. We all knew it wouldn't work...even Cruz knew it wouldn't work on Aug 1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIlx99nSWdg#t=127
In an interview with the Heritage Foundation Cruz says they don't have the votes to pass it in the House or Senate. He says it's because GOP representatives feared they would be blamed for a shutdown. Looks like they were right, but all the conservatives on all the blogs, and discussion groups said finally someone was speaking for conservative values and protecting our liberty and constitutional freedoms. Most of the representatives who won reelection once said this is a bad idea.
But on Oct 1 Boehner and McConnell let Cruz take charge and he lead us down the tubes with 75% of the public. He didn't win over squat. He's just lucky more people don't know it was him. They blame the GOP for listening to him. He is hated by the rats, distrusted by his colleagues, and becoming less favored by conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Ann Coulter, and Grover Norquist.
Cruz thought there would be protests and marches to back him up. 16 days later he had no strategy but wait it out. Are you kidding me?
Cruz wanted to lead the people before they were ready to go there, and the GOP should never let him lead again. I liken Ted Cruz to the senator from my state of WI Senator Joseph McCarthy. History proved he was correct about soviet infiltration but you can't deny the damage to his cause.
-
In 1976 George Will wrote a scathing editorial denouncing a primary challenger to then sitting president, Gerald Ford. He wasn't the only one. It seemed everyone in the Republican Party from those in media to those in leadership piled on this challenger. The Challenger lost his bid for the nomination. Gerald Ford, however, lost to Jimmy Carter that year.
In 1980 the Challenger ran for president again. It was his third attempt. Again George Will and nearly everyone in the media, the Establishment, and the Republican party attacked this man mercilessly. Called him everything imaginable from extreme and dangerous, to unintellectual and just plain stupid.
This time he won the nomination. Republican leaders hated Ronald Reagan in the beginning because he was threatening the balance of power. Just like Ted Cruz is threatening the balance of power now. And elitist don't like it. Thank God we don't have elitists posting here at TBR.
-
Will and Krauthammer are nothing more than puppets of the GOP-E. Their jobs are to toss enough red meat to excite the unwashed but at the end of the day get back to dine on grilled quail and arugala.
-
Will and Krauthammer are nothing more than puppets of the GOP-E. Their jobs are to toss enough red meat to excite the unwashed but at the end of the day get back to dine on grilled quail and arugala.
Damn glad they're on my team. They are both brilliant, as is Sowell.
-
Was George Will brilliant in 1976 or 1980 when he, along with the rest of the GOP establishment, was dead wrong about Ronald Reagan?
I suppose he could plead temporary insanity since he's written many an editorial since then praising Ronald Reagan's brilliant leadership.
-
Was George Will brilliant in 1976 or 1980 when he, along with the rest of the GOP establishment, was dead wrong about Ronald Reagan?
I suppose he could plead temporary insanity since he's written many an editorial since then praising Ronald Reagan's brilliant leadership.
I don't know aligncare. I didn't read it. do you have a link?
Eric Hoffer — 'Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.'
-
I don't know aligncare. I didn't read it. do you have a link?
Eric Hoffer — 'Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.'
I don't have a link to the citation (it was actually written in 1974 just before Reagan announced his candidacy and after Reagan had formed the group Americans for the Republic). Will's editorial can be purchased at the Washington Post. November 12, 1974, titled: Ronald Reagan, the GOP and '76.
-
I don't have a link to the citation (it was actually written in 1974 just before Reagan announced his candidacy and after Reagan had formed the group Americans for the Republic). Will's editorial can be purchased at the Washington Post. November 12, 1974, titled: Ronald Reagan, the GOP and '76.
Was George Will brilliant in 1976 or 1980 when he, along with the rest of the GOP establishment, was dead wrong about Ronald Reagan?
I suppose he could plead temporary insanity since he's written many an editorial since then praising Ronald Reagan's brilliant leadership.
You make a very sharp accusation about Will with nothing to back it up. So not conceding that Will was insane, and not having read nor any interest in paying money to the WaPo, I may never know what Will wrote in 1976. Maybe you want to purchase it read it again and see if your recollection from 1976 is accurate and post it here. But by your meager description I'll suggest maybe he had some reason for not liking Reagan at first but was impressed with how he handled himself as President.
I have no clue "what rest of the GOP establishment, was dead wrong about Ronald Reagan." Who are you referring to? What are referring to? Give me something specific to work with here.
The GOP establishment wasn't wrong about Reagan in 1976. He couldn't attract enough voters in the primaries. The GOPe didn't think he could and they were right.
-
Fortunately, Mark Levin has a couple of researchers who pulled dozens of citations. Levin read a number of quotes from establishment Republicans last night, from speaker of the house in 1976 to Nelson Rockefeller to various and sundry congressional Republicans, all of them trashing Reagan. If you go to Mark Levin show.com you can listen to the first 15 minutes of his show on podcast. It's all there and it's free.
The attacks on Reagan coming from republican leaders in 1976 and 1980 are well documented. Do you really need to challenge that fact to make your point about Cruz?
-
Sen Cruz has not woken anyone up. Do you think the 25% of America that agrees with him are new converts? He is telling them what they want to hear. That somehow an ideologically pure, fight for the sake of fighting, GOP will so enthrall the masses that they will wake from their booze, drugs, and television that they will vote GOP? At the same time he is pushing away voters and pushing our minority party away from a majority. That is the wrong direction to be leading.
Sen Cruz thought the American people would rise up and demand an end to Obamacare when he shutdown the government. The proof that he is responsible can be heard in the call for clarification of the end game by Charles Krauthammer on the Laura Ingraham show on Oct 10th.
Krauthammer says "These are the generals (Lee and Cruz) who lead people into the Battle of [the] Little Bighorn and then go home and have lunch and leave the troops out there? Where are they? Where are the generals? What’s their strategy to get abolition of Obamacare?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUZjtKiZhcc
This was Cruz's strategy. Force Obama to sign a CR that doesn't fund Obamacare. Knowing he wouldn't. We all knew he wouldn't because he told us that many times. The SCF announced in bold letters the battle would begin on Oct 1st when they put up their silly website showing how few Republicans were with Cruz and Lee. Cruz argued it had to be Oct 1 because it was the last chance to keep Obamacare from becoming a fixture of the American economy. We all knew it wouldn't work...even Cruz knew it wouldn't work on Aug 1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIlx99nSWdg#t=127
In an interview with the Heritage Foundation Cruz says they don't have the votes to pass it in the House or Senate. He says it's because GOP representatives feared they would be blamed for a shutdown. Looks like they were right, but all the conservatives on all the blogs, and discussion groups said finally someone was speaking for conservative values and protecting our liberty and constitutional freedoms. Most of the representatives who won reelection once said this is a bad idea.
But on Oct 1 Boehner and McConnell let Cruz take charge and he lead us down the tubes with 75% of the public. He didn't win over squat. He's just lucky more people don't know it was him. They blame the GOP for listening to him. He is hated by the rats, distrusted by his colleagues, and becoming less favored by conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Ann Coulter, and Grover Norquist.
Cruz thought there would be protests and marches to back him up. 16 days later he had no strategy but wait it out. Are you kidding me?
Cruz wanted to lead the people before they were ready to go there, and the GOP should never let him lead again. I liken Ted Cruz to the senator from my state of WI Senator Joseph McCarthy. History proved he was correct about soviet infiltration but you can't deny the damage to his cause.
Very good summary. Perhaps America will be ready for Cruz's approach in a few years. It's clear he's recruiting few advocates now. The good news is the opportunities for him to lead the GOP to the brink are almost nil now that the budget and the debt ceiling are off the table.
-
Fortunately, Mark Levin has a couple of researchers who pulled dozens of citations. Levin read a number of quotes from establishment Republicans last night, from speaker of the house in 1976 to Nelson Rockefeller to various and sundry congressional Republicans, all of them trashing Reagan. If you go to Mark Levin show.com you can listen to the first 15 minutes of his show on podcast. It's all there and it's free.
The attacks on Reagan coming from republican leaders in 1976 and 1980 are well documented. Do you really need to challenge that fact to make your point about Cruz?
It's a false equivalency to compare Cruz to Reagan. Ronald Reagan had a well-developed, well-articulated vision, even in 1976. Cruz has confrontation and bluster.
-
November 3, 1984 - The Nation
Smiling racism
by Roger Wilkins
Southern politicians used to promise their redneck constituents that they would “keep the n*****s in their place,” and when elected, they proceeded to do just that. It has been reported that after losing an early election to just such a politician, George Wallace vowed never to be “outn*****ed” again. Well, it is clear that Ronald Reagan is not going to be “outcolored.”
May 24, 1986 - The Nation
The evil of banality. (George Shultz, U.S. bombing of Libya )
by Alex Cockburn
It is curious that George Shultz, whose pin-striped person conveys the very essence of dour banality, should have turned out to be the most rabid, indeed demented, of the entire Reagan gang.
June 14, 1986 - The Nation
Minority report. (Vietnam War, Watergate)
by Christopher Hitchens
Ronald Wilson Reagan knows a thousand ways of being sentimental, hypocritical and cheap.
September 28, 1985 - The Nation
Minority report
by Christopher Hitchens
Over the past few weeks, while the President has been making an idiot of himself yet again on the issue, the Botha lobby has been fighting back. It has been meeting in the White House itself, in the office of Patrick Buchanan. Buchanan, who tried unsuccessfully to become Ambassador to South Africa after the collapse of his boss Richard Nixon, has been hosting and mobilizing the ultraright and making war on Republican waverers. Attenders of his meetings were drawn from the Heritage Foundation, the Conservative Caucus and the usual bunch of big-mouth, God-bothering fund-raisers.
February 22, 1987 - Chicago Sun Times
A dinner party for Reagan bashers
by Andy Rooney
Reagan bashers know no middle ground. They don’t give an inch. Anything wrong with the world is President Reagan’s fault. Anything good that happens in his administration is luck.
“What an idiot!” is their idea of how to start a conversation about politics.
They don’t have a conciliatory bone in their bodies. They feed the birds all winter, cry during sad movies and hold the door open for elderly people, but they wouldn’t give Reagan the time of day if they owned the Timex watch company.
One recent Saturday night I was at a dinner party with nine other people, including the anonymous aforementioned, who didn’t make the bed until half an hour before we went out.
At dinner, the knockers brought the conversation around to the Iran arms sale.
“They say there are millions of dollars missing and no one knows where it went,” one guest said.
“Ha!” said the anti-Reagan person in the green dress. “I bet I know where it went. Have you seen all the new clothes Nancy’s been wearing?”
“Yeah,” said the president hater on her right. “They’re probably setting aside a little nestegg for that dog she’s always dragging around.”
“It’s a good thing we’ve got a Constitution,” someone piped up, “or this guy would declare himself king.”
These people took more pleasure out of hating the president that Saturday night than from their dinner. They often put forth their most creative work devising ways to dislike him.
“I think he’s out of his mind,” one of them said. “I really do.”
“It’s Alzheimer’s. They ought to rename the disease after him.”
“That’s what I want to be when I get old and feeble-minded,” my former boss said, “president.”
“His idea of serious reading is the swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated,” my constant companion complained.
“Yeah. He likes to count the pieces in the two-piece bathing suits. That’s as high as he can go.”
Every once in a while I made an attempt to come in with something laudatory.
“You have to admit,” I said, trying to stem the flow of criticism, “that the economy’s been good.”
“Carter did that,” someone said. “Reagan’s benefitting from the things Carter did.”
June 13, 1986 - Albany Times Union
Vet held in threat to ‘senile’ Reagan
by Joe Mahoney
After viewing President Reagan’s news conference on television Wednesday night, a disabled veteran phoned Albany police from a tavern, denounced Reagan as “senile” and threatened to assassinate him, authorities said Thursday.
February 3, 1987 - Chicago Sun Times
Reagan Jokes no laughing matter
by Janes Gerstenzang
But for Reagan, the current round of jokes represents a problem that is potentially no laughing matter. In response to the Iran-contras scandal, Reagan has declared he did not know all that was being done.
That explanation has laid the president open to a kind of lampooning that stirs genuine concern among his supporters because it threatens to erode his ability to govern at a time when Reagan can ill afford such damage. The new crop of jokes raises questions about whether the president is in charge of the nation’s government - or is capable of being in charge - especially in the sensitive realm of national security.
What worries some Republican advisers, said one former Reagan aide who has maintained his ties to the White House, is the possibility, reflected in the satire, that “the president now is being viewed as an amiable old man rather than as a broad-stroke president.”
“If that type of thing becomes very broad-based, that could hurt,” said Richard B. Wirthlin, a Republican pollster who regularly samples the president’s popularity and works closely with the White House.
“Clearly the president is more vulnerable to being the butt of jokes now than he was three or four months ago,” he said.
“It’s important for him to be supported by the grass roots,” said Wirthlin. “There are going to be battles with Congress and he has a better chance of winning these battles if he has that support.”
March 2, 1987 -The Boston Globe
The buck stops with her
by Mike Barnicle
Maybe you noticed that since the whole Iran mess began, Mrs. Reagan’s husband has shown the command decision instincts of a glazed donut. He sat there like a stone for months, acting like someone whose IQ equals the mean temperature of St. Petersburg, Fla., as the entire government came crashing down around his Day-glo orange hair and wax-filled ears.
March 5, 1987 -The Boston Globe
His favorite setting- in front of the cameras
by Jack Thomas
It was the president’s favorite setting — he, himself, alone with a television camera, talking directly to the American people without intrusions by aggressive reporters asking insinuating questions that sometimes confuse him.
For the rest of us, it was a 12-minute episode in what has become the familiar experience of television playing a critical role in the course of the presidency and the nation.
Having heard the president’s awkward words upon release of the Tower Commission report, and having read the columnists who have been making fun of his forgetfulness, and having seen the clips of Nancy Reagan whispering to him when he could not answer simple questions, and having been warned that she may be playing a larger role in governing the nation than perhaps the Constitution intended for the wife of a president, the American people were watching carefully last night for what conservative columnist Ben Wattenberg called “Senile-gate.”
“He has to demonstrate he has all his marbles,” said Wattenberg.
October 25, 1986 - The Nation
Reykjavik and the war economy
by Alexander Cockburn
So much for Reagan’s place in history. It’s been an axiom of those holding a kindly or evolutionary view of the President’s political consciousness that in the end a sense of responsibility to children as yet unborn and history books as yet unwritten would incline him to strike a deal with the Soviet Union on arms control. Along the road to Reykjavik almost all the pundits, editorialists and “news analysts’ had taken the same line: the President was accessible to reason. They were wrong, and those who held the steady-state view of Reagan’s political consciousness—that it was, is and always will be a shriveled affair—were right. The President did the wrong thing as he always will.
October 9, 1987 - Washington Post
`The Civil Rights Thing’
by Richard Cohen
And yet both Reagan and Bork have opposed civil rights legislation. Initially, Reagan opposed every recent civil rights act. As for Bork, he not only criticized a court decision striking down the poll tax, he also found fault with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which barred discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants and public restrooms. Bork, the intellectual, anguished over the rights of proprietors. Reagan, no intellectual, nevertheless struck the same note: even bigots “have certain constitutional rights.” Not since John Steinbeck teamed George with Lenny have two such intellectually disparate people found such common cause.
Media Research Center has a list of more attacks on Ronald Reagan here going all the way into the early 90’s. Perhaps what liberals are missing here is that Reagan, unlike President Obama, was not thin-skinned or defensive about what critics said about him…at least not publicly; however, he knew which newspaper editorial pages counted and which ones did not. Pat Buchanan, who served as President Reagan’s communications director, put it this way: (H/T Human Events):
Frankly, Reagan was more concerned about what you guys said at HUMAN EVENTS and what they said in the Washington Times, than what they said in the New York Times.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/jan/28/we-remember-what-liberals-said-and-what-they-reall/#ixzz2u4FcfSBA
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
-
November 3, 1984 - The Nation
Smiling racism
by Roger Wilkins
Why are you quoting a bunch of liberals?
-
It's a false equivalency to compare Cruz to Reagan. Ronald Reagan had a well-developed, well-articulated vision, even in 1976. Cruz has confrontation and bluster.
I'm not comparing Cruz to Reagan. I am comparing the similar reaction of what each embody to the status quo.
-
Fortunately, Mark Levin has a couple of researchers who pulled dozens of citations. Levin read a number of quotes from establishment Republicans last night, from speaker of the house in 1976 to Nelson Rockefeller to various and sundry congressional Republicans, all of them trashing Reagan. If you go to Mark Levin show.com you can listen to the first 15 minutes of his show on podcast. It's all there and it's free.
The attacks on Reagan coming from republican leaders in 1976 and 1980 are well documented. Do you really need to challenge that fact to make your point about Cruz?
The fact that Levin needed two researchers proves it's not well documented, but after listening to Levin I will concede the similarities of criticism.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,130486.msg530424.html#msg530424 here is a more in depth response.