April 7, 2016

Suit the suits.

"There is no question that [Cruz] has been a polarizing figure, and it’s kind of ironic that a lot of people who were so critical of him are now jumping on the bandwagon because it suits their needs."

Said Ben Carson.

52 comments:

MikeR said...

Well, a lot of people would have preferred Rubio (or Walker, or ...), but that option was taken away by Trump and his minions. Now we are to be criticized because we chose Cruz over Trump?
I'd vote for Trump over the Democratic candidate, but I'd much rather not have to.

Brando said...

Yeah that's how it goes, Carson...go back to sleep you sleepy silly man!

I'm sure he'll be equally amazed when leftists who don't like Hillary still support her come November.

Ambrose said...

Compromise is what politics is all about. Dr. Carson should know that.

Witness said...

Welcome to all nomination fights ever.

MadisonMan said...

They'd rather lose with Cruz than anything else at this point. That's why the bandwagon jumpers are hopping on board the U. S. S. Cruz, destination nowhere.

Brando said...

"Assuming Trump wins, Brando, you'll be doing it all over again to defeat the Democrat. If you don't see problems, just keep on the way you're going."

I've almost completely given up hope that anyone besides Hillary is getting elected this year. For all her weaknesses, things have fallen perfectly into place. Her party's establishment (much more potent than the GOP establishment) has cleared the deck for her, while the GOP is looming towards civil war. There's only a very slight chance they pull out of this.

Brando said...

"Welcome to all nomination fights ever."

Pretty much. I imagine Santorum's support in 2012 wasn't pro-Santorum so much as anti-Romney. Otherwise, some of those pro-Santorums should have stuck around for 2016.

"They'd rather lose with Cruz than anything else at this point."

They might be hoping that if they nominate Cruz and he loses, it'll justify nominating a more moderate candidate in 2020--sort of like Goldwater's loss in '64 led to Nixon in '68.

Thorley Winston said...

Well, a lot of people would have preferred Rubio (or Walker, or ...), but that option was taken away by Trump and his minions. Now we are to be criticized because we chose Cruz over Trump?

I was pretty much all in for Rubio after Walker and Jindall ended their campaigns (might have gone over to one of the other governors if they did better) but Cruz was always my next choice. That’s how it works in politics (and life): you go into it knowing that you may not get what you originally wanted and that you need to have a back-up plan (and often a back-up for your back-up) or else you’ll wind up with nothing or something that you really, really don’t want like Clinton or Sanders.

If Ben Carson doesn’t understand that, then he’s even dumber than his behavior in Iowa lead many of us to believe.

Thorley Winston said...

They might be hoping that if they nominate Cruz and he loses, it'll justify nominating a more moderate candidate in 2020--sort of like Goldwater's loss in '64 led to Nixon in '68.

I don’t know who “they” are supposed to be but as someone who didn’t initially support Cruz because I think he’d have a harder time in the general election that someone like Rubio, I’m supporting Cruz because (a) he’s more likely to energize the conservative base because unlike Trump, Cruz actually is a conservative, (b) Cruz is more likely to either win or lose by a smaller margin than Trump which leaves Republicans with more to work with in the next election and (c) Trump’s negatives are so high that it puts Republican control of the Senate and even the House in jeopardy.

Mada Gasper said...

I came to America 3 decades ago to attend graduate school and got my doctoral degree in a hard STEM subject from a highly regarded university. I have watched with dismay the steady but sure decline in America since my first days here, both in terms of its 'software' and 'hardware.' It directly correlates to an unchecked increase in immigration from the Third World.

Coming to America LEGALLY used to be very hard during my time (forget just running over the southern border). You had to demonstrate a strong academic record and qualify for a Fellowship or Assistantship in your department. All that has come crashing down. The laxity in admission standards, both in universities and at US consular posts around the world, is astonishing. It is almost as if the entire world thinks it is their right to come here no questions asked and our officials comply. (I am very well versed in the H-1B scam and the corruption in Wash DC - all including Paul Ryan are complicit in this - but H-1B is a whole different topic, for another day).

Which brings me to Trump. He is the only one who has sensed the fundamental problem and he is not afraid to say it. It is also why it is so easy to brand him a 'racist,' 'xenophobic' - the usual tropes of the American Left (which, shameful to note, conservatives have now adopted to hit him with). Trump is not my ideal candidate, but I am voting for him in California and in the general (I will do a write-in if he isn't the nominee). I'm non-white, by the way.

I'm convinced that Trump is the last bulwark, however flawed, standing between America and its slide into a Third World sewer. I have to laugh when the so-called conservatives intone that he isn't a "true conservative." You won't have a country left in 10-15 years (not in any sense that you are used to) and you are worried about conservatism? As someone who travels a lot to Europe (and the Far East), let's just say that my experience is first-hand.

Don't Wisconsinites have televisions in their homes and don't they see what is happening in Europe with the mass immigration? Do they think they will be somehow insulated from the scum tide that will CERTAINLY wash over their (currently) white cocoons? Haven't they kept up with happenings in California and other border states? Even in my neck of the woods, the very desirable SF Bay Area, the decay is unmistakable.

There is a part of me that would like to see the Althouses and her kind suffer the consequences of their Never-Trump vote last Tuesday. To think that she would favor a corporate ponce like Paul Ryan is beyond my understanding (even allowing for differences in political outlook). There won't be much Schadenfreude though as all of us will be swimming in the same swamp.

This link and the comments that follow are revealing -

http://www.unz.com/isteve/wisconsin-postmortem/

Drago said...

Irony abounds in politics and there is nothing new about that.

ellamentary said...

Ben Carson was highly entertaining in that interview, I must say. The Donald has been out there making fun of the "establishment" people he says are rallying to Cruz simply because he is an alternative to Trump---- which is, after all, a legitimate reason to support Cruz at this point. He has been trying to work up the crowds with the idea that such an endorsement is illegitimate and they should ignore the arguments of such people. And then he sends out Dr. Carson, who has said recently that there are better candidates for president than the one he is endorsing, Donald Trump, and expressed such enthusiastically supportive ideas as, "well, even if he's bad, it's only four years" and, today, "of course there are better candidates for president. There's always someone better at what you do. There are better neurosurgeons than I am. There are better reporters than you are." [despite the quotation remarks, I am not working off a transcript and can only repeat the words as I recall them.] So apparently it's perfectly okay to endorse the Donald for reasons other than an unwavering conviction he's the best possible person for the job, but not to endorse anyone else for that same reason. Good to know. I think the quality of Mr. Trump's surrogates, including Dr. Carson and Gov. Palin, leaves a bit to be desired in terms of effective promotion of his candidacy. Not that I have a problem with that, since I don't want his candidacy to succeed in gaining the nomination.

Brando said...

"Btw have any of you big genius GOP operators and mack daddies even given any thought, whatsoever, about keeping Trump and his legions onside if he doesn't win? "

That's a problem for someone else. I'm no GOP operator. Far as I can see, whoever wins the nomination is going to have a tough time keeping both Trump and anti-Trump factions together.

"I don’t know who “they” are supposed to be but as someone who didn’t initially support Cruz because I think he’d have a harder time in the general election that someone like Rubio, I’m supporting Cruz because (a) he’s more likely to energize the conservative base because unlike Trump, Cruz actually is a conservative, (b) Cruz is more likely to either win or lose by a smaller margin than Trump which leaves Republicans with more to work with in the next election and (c) Trump’s negatives are so high that it puts Republican control of the Senate and even the House in jeopardy."

Most of Cruz's support is pro-Cruz conservatives rather than anti-Trump moderates, but I think the anti-Trump moderates would sooner see him nominated because even where they don't agree with him (or like him) they at least know what he's about and what he will do. Trump on the other hand is such an unstable and out of his depth person that they can't risk winning or losing with him (but let's face it, it'd be losing with Trump).

With Cruz, you at least know any people he'd appoint (to Supreme Court, lower courts, and various agencies) would be conservative. Moderate Republicans are fine with that. They also know they can cut deals with him, even if it means triangulating on some issues--and he may even give them a bargaining chip to deal with Dems and get more right-leaning legislation (though frankly, no matter who is president next year, I expect a lot of congressional gridlock).

Brando said...

"Btw have any of you big genius GOP operators and mack daddies even given any thought, whatsoever, about keeping Trump and his legions onside if he doesn't win? "

And while it'd be a tough time for whoever's (whomever's?) nominated, ultimately I think there'll be a lot more party line voting than everyone threatens right now.

Anglelyne said...

Mada: I have to laugh when the so-called conservatives intone that he isn't a "true conservative." You won't have a country left in 10-15 years (not in any sense that you are used to) and you are worried about conservatism?

Thank for the realtalk, Mada. I'm a middle-class American, and the thought that often runs through my head listening to my countrymen is "dear God, do these people have any fucking idea, any fucking idea in the world, any fucking idea at all what's going on on this planet? (It's remarkable how many people are so quick to accuse others of "wanting to live in the '50s", yet seem to think it's still 1950 in America, and always will be.)

I'm not an immigrant, I don't know why my perspective is so markedly different from other "conservatives" and is much more like yours. Maybe it's the expat experience, I dunno.

Thorley Winston said...

"Btw have any of you big genius GOP operators and mack daddies even given any thought, whatsoever, about keeping Trump and his legions onside if he doesn't win? "

Yes and I’ve had a couple of thoughts about that:

(1) Once you pay the Dane geld, you never get rid of the Dane. If a candidate is able to get the nomination by threatening to run as a third party candidate if the delegates don’t give in to his demands, that only encourages this same thing to happen every election cycle.

(2) Trump is toxic and his association (unwanted by us) with the Republican brand is harmful and may jeopardize our control of the House and Senate. Having him publicly leave the Republican Party (not that he ever really joined us) might actually be a good thing.

(3) Should Trump leave, the fact that he can’t seem to get people to run as delegates in States that he supposedly “won” suggests that he probably wouldn’t really take many people with him or that he might cause us to lose more than we gain. It’s one thing to show up at a primary to vote for a candidate as a lark. It’s a lot different to actually show up and work for a candidate or a party. Trump seems to be very good at getting people to show up at rallies who want to watch a spectacle but so far he’s shown little to no ability to turn them into anything constructive. On the other hand, the #NeverTrump Republicans tend to be people who have demonstrated that they’re the kind of people who actually add real value to a campaign as volunteers and activists. It’s entirely likely that the people who would sit out this election if Trump is the nominee are more crucial than the newcomers who would stay him if Trump isn’t the nominee.




Robin Eatmon said...

I think Mada is correct: "I'm convinced that Trump is the last bulwark, however flawed, standing between America and its slide into a Third World sewer. I have to laugh when the so-called conservatives intone that he isn't a "true conservative." You won't have a country left in 10-15 years (not in any sense that you are used to) and you are worried about conservatism?"
Some blogs like Gates of Vienna: http://gatesofvienna.net/ paint a dire picture of the situation in Europe. Most people I know seem to be in the coexist bumper sticker phase of thinking and don't even want to acknowledge the potential of danger ahead.

StephenFearby said...

I try to avoid reading reading The Times'quasi-conservative/theological columnist Ross Douthat because metaphysical wanderings aren't my thing.

In his previous effort before the Wisconsin primary ("Who Is Ted Cruz?"), Douthat unconvincingly compares Cruz in an unflattering way to the smarmy but efficient Anthony Powell character Kenneth Widmerpool (Dance to the Music of Time).

In his latest effort, "Mr. Cruz Goes to the Convention" Douthat respectfully acknowledges that Cruz has displayed some relevant chops:

".. Instead, the only candidate building such a machine is Cruz himself. His team has been working the system since Iowa, getting as many loyalists as possible chosen for delegate slates, to the point where it seems reasonable to assume that many delegates pledged to Trump will switch to Cruz at the first opportunity.

It also seems reasonable, as FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver has pointed out, to assume that many of the delegates who aren’t explicitly recruited by Team Cruz will still like him just fine. As loathed as the Texas senator might be in the Senate cloakroom, there’s no evidence that he’s similarly despised among the grass-roots activists who often become or help pick convention delegates; quite the reverse, in fact."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/opinion/who-is-ted-cruz.html

Which spurred this delicious Alinskyite comment:

sharon worcester county, ma
[reply to:]James Landi-"...and while Cruz will be crushed by HRC"


"Check the polls. They are terrifying. The latest polls from late March show Cruz and Clinton in a dead heat. Sanders beats him handily but Hillary's numbers are scary and within the margin of error in almost every poll from Real Clear Politics and Huff Post. Our best hope for sanity to reign, should Cruz secure the nomination, is for Trump to run as a third party candidate, thus splitting the vote.

Maybe we Democrats should be sending Kasich some donations since the best way to thwart Cruz is Kasich remaining in the primary race. The Trump/Cruz numbers are too close for comfort. If Kasich drops out I truly fear that Cruz will win the nomination. And that is terrifying."

mccullough said...

It's interesting that Cruz core support base is slightly less tha Trump's. If Cruz is the small government conservative, what does it say that he doesn't have enough supporters to win the nomination outright? If Cruz can only pull 35% of the vote in GOP primaries then what does he bring to a general election with an even smaller percentage of small government conservative voters. Cruz has a 33% favorable to 54% unfavorable rating among likely voters. Not as bad as Trump's 30% favorable to 62% unfavorable, but it's really bad for someone running for president. Trump and Cruz are both very polarizing. Not good news for the GOP.

Paul said...

Another thumbs up for Mada's viewpoint. I've been saying the same thing for a long time. Demographic replacement is national suicide and both the dems and GOPers are complicit. Trump for all his flaws is the only one who gets it.

ellamentary said...

Wonderful analysis, Thorley Winston. I am not a "gop operator and mac daddy" either, but I bope any such person is as unconcerned about appeasing the Trump fanatics as I am. The grownups in the room who see what the short-, medium-, and long-term dangers of giving in to Trump's demands and hissy fits are not the ones who are a danger to the Republican party.

bagoh20 said...

I'd comment, but Thorley Winston seems to have already handled it for me, and with better grammar, and punctuation. Thanks.

Jack Wayne said...

McCollough, what it says is that the are few small government voters in America, more takers than givers.

cubanbob said...

Nichevo why is it the assumption that if there is a third party run it will be by Trump? I see a just as likely run by an actual third party guy Sanders if the Democrat machine fixes the nomination for Hillary. It would be rather interesting if both Trump and Sanders ran as independents.

Paul said...

"McCollough, what it says is that the are few small government voters in America, more takers than givers."

And how is that likely to change with the open borders policy of both parties and the who gives a shit attitude of the #NeverTrumpers? You're worried about the size of government while working as hard as you can to elect someone, Cruz, Kaisich, Ryan, (but more likely Hillary) ostensibly to help shrink the size of government or fight for conservative principals while the country fills to overflowing with a new population of permanent big government democratic socialist voters. Between immigration and the cultural Marxist indoctrination of the young this country is fast becoming unrecognizable. I've come to see that "conservatives" are some of the most willfully stupid people imaginable, reminding me more and more of doctrinaire leftists in their intransigent jackassery.

AReasonableMan said...

Mada Gasper said...
There is a part of me that would like to see the Althouses and her kind suffer the consequences of their Never-Trump vote last Tuesday. To think that she would favor a corporate ponce like Paul Ryan is beyond my understanding


No it's not. It is all about class. White americans have split, apparently decisively, along class lines. The upper middle class like Althouse have done well in this system and they aren't going to let it go without a fight. They strongly believe that they are the elite of a meritocracy and, if anything, that they should be rewarded more handsomely for their brilliance. They have no concern for the economic fates of other classes.



tim in vermont said...

Maybe we have made the judgement that Trump doesn't have a chance?

tim in vermont said...

If Cruz can have affairs with that mug, my estimation of him goes up.

tim in vermont said...

I am going to write in Iowahawk.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

What's not to like about Cruz?
..Not certifiably "handsome."
..Speaking voice has annoying nasal tone.
..not "personable."
..Understands and honors the Constitution.

Paul said...

" They're looking for freaking heretics!"

The old saw was that the right is looking for converts and the left is looking for heretics.

Which reinforces my observation that these "conservatives" are mirror images of leftists. Different ideologies but the same emotional profile.

Paul said...

" They're just going to have to accept losing in June so we can win in November."

Except as #NeverTrumpers they'd prefer to lose than to win with Trump. I don't believe rehabilitation is an option with them.

chickelit said...

I'd comment, but Mada and Anglelyne already handled it for me, and with better grammar, and punctuation. Thanks.

(yes, that's a deliberate swipe at bagoh20)

Plus I always thought that Benjamin Cumberbum actor was a bit pretentious.

tim in vermont said...

I won't say #NeverTrump. I would vote for him over Hillary without thinking about it. But my wife, who never votes Democrat ever, would cancel my vote by voting for Hillary, whom she also despises. I just simply do not think Trump can win. That's my analysis. I think he has maxed out the sucker vote already.

Tari said...

This is the same Ben Carson who jumped on the Trump Bandwagon as soon as he ended his own campaign? People who live in grass houses shouldn't throw lawnmowers, Dr. Carson.

gadfly said...

In today's world, smart people are depicted as "Rocket Scientists" or "Brain Surgeons" but I would opine that Ben Carson must be the exception that proves the rule.

mccullough said...

No one can rebut the point that Cruz is polarizing.

Qwinn said...

To Mada, Anglelyne and all the others talking about how dangerous the immigration is: Absolutely. In complete agreement. That's why I'm voting for Cruz. His record on immigration is better than anyone else's in either party, his defense of that single vote as a poison pill is very plausible (that crap goes on all the time and it works), and the few quotes I've heard that seem to show that he's open borders are both vague and could easily be out of context and, more importantly, they don't hold a candle to Trump admitting that as soon as he deported them, he'd invite them right back in.

So yes. Immigration is one of the, if not the, most important issues at the moment. And I have no doubt at all that Cruz will handle it way way better than Trump will.

chickelit said...

mccullough said...No one can rebut the point that Cruz is polarizing.

All the candidates are polarizing. As a chemist, I'd say it's the milieu stew. Lacking a strong titrant, we need a diluent. A dilution of strength.

Qwinn said...

And Cruz is polarizing? Compared to who? Heh.

Name the last Republican who wasn't dubbed polarizing once running for office. Or extreme. Or Hitler. All Republicans are polarizing, all Democrats are bipartisan centrists. If you actually let that bullshit influence you... well, you're either a leftist or a Trump voter. Toxic levels of irony there.

chickelit said...

@Qwinn: You have Cruz figured wrong. He is 100% for untrammeled immigration, especially regarding replacing highly skilled Americans. He gave lip service to recent "abuses" but his heart is against America. Check his record/history.

Qwinn said...

chicklelit:

I have checked his record. Maybe you should. To start with, here's his written position:

https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/

"We stopped the Gang of Eight bill. Ted Cruz led the fight against the establishment. We would be living under amnesty right now if Cruz had not succeeded.” – Rush Limbaugh

Other quotes I've pulled up in searches:

"As President, I will stop illegal immigration, build a wall that works, triple border security and put in place the surveillance and biometric tracking to secure the border. Border security is national security. We need to stop Obama's amnesty and enforce the rule of law. And we need to reform legal immigration to protect American workers." - Ted Cruz, Jan 8 2016

"Ted Cruz says he'd deport all illegal immigrants in U.S." - Washington Times headline, Feb 23, 2016

"We are going to end sanctuary cities by cutting off taxpayer dollars and we are going to end welfare benefits for people here illegally" - Mar 3, 2016

"I think it is a mistake to forgive those who break law, to allow them to become U.S. citizens, and that's why I've led the fight against granting citizenship to those here illegally" - Feb 26, 2016

Perhaps most radically in the new plan, Cruz says he would halt "any increases in legal immigration so long as American unemployment remains unacceptably high."

On June 17 2015, he announced a bill titled "Immigration Slush Fund Elimination Act" that would stop the US DHS ability to use its fees "for the provision of legal immigration services to fund amnesty."

And a Politifact article titled "Donald Trump wrongly claims he started immigration debate" credits Cruz for stating, 3 months before Trump even announced his candidacy, "Instead of the lawlessness and the president's unconstitutional executive amnesty, imagine a president that finally, finally, finally secures the borders."

Somehow, I don't think "He is 100% for untrammeled immigration" is a very good summary of the above. The only thing Trump has said that is tougher than the above is the ban on Muslim immigration, which I would actually support, but since Trump now says that *he never said that* (even though he very much did), all that counts as is a promise already broken.

Qwinn said...

Oh, and this is a pretty interesting article from NPR dated July 4, 2013, in case you object to the above as "he's just saying those things to get elected":

http://www.npr.org/2013/07/04/198781839/ted-cruz-and-his-texas-electorate-at-odds-on-immigration

A snippet:

DAVID WELNA, BYLINE: Before voting against the Senate's bipartisan immigration bill last week, Texas Republican Ted Cruz had a point to make.

SENATOR TED CRUZ: Illegal immigration is an enormous problem. It's an enormous problem in my home state of Texas.

WELNA: Cruz, whose father is a legal immigrant from Cuba, rejected the bill's promised path to citizenship for some 11 million unauthorized immigrants, four-fifths from Latin America.

CRUZ: There needs to be a consequence for having violated the law. It is unfair, in my opinion, to the millions of legal immigrants who followed the rules, who stayed in line, who stayed in their home country years or decades to reward those who broke the law with a path to citizenship.

WELNA: That hardline stance puts Cruz at odds with some fellow Texas Republicans who do support the immigration bill. They warn it's political suicide for Republicans to fight it in a state that's already 40 percent Hispanic and it's becoming more so every year and where two out of three Latinos vote Democratic. Southern Baptist Convention leader Richard Land is one of the Republicans urging their freshman senator to reverse course.


Rubio lost me because of his stand on immigration. Cruz kept me for the same. And I'll say it again: I trust Cruz to actually do something about it a HELL of a lot more than Donald "I didn't say that (about banning Muslim immigration)" Trump.

Qwinn said...

Oh, as for "especially regarding replacing highly skilled Americans", here is his current position per the NY Times:

"Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz is vowing to suspend a program that gives work visas to highly skilled immigrants, reversing his position on the program as part of an aggressive immigration plan designed to appeal to the GOP's most conservative wing."

And when did he state a previous position that he then reversed in 2015? During the Gang of 8 fight. And frankly, if he hadn't stated *some* alternative to amnesty along those lines, he would've been dismissed outright as a bigot who just hates all minorities (including himself, of course). The guy is a masterful debater, and the effect of his arguments at that time was to get the Gang of 8 bill scuttled. I'm not going hold *anything* he said at the time to make that happen. And he took massive political risks opposing it as much as he did, as that NPR article noted. Yeah, based on his record, I trust Cruz to actually walk the walk way way WAY more than Trump's empty talk that he's hilariously already retracting even before the primary's over. By the time he's in the General he'll be saying "I never said we should build a wall, we just have to be careful, that's all."

tim in vermont said...

Every Republican is polarizing. This is the crap we hear every four years, Republicans are stupid, Republicans are racist, Republicans are polarizing. That is standard stuff Dems throw at everybody. Who cares?

Paddy O said...

I don't think a Berlusconi is the answer to a Merkel.

jr565 said...

And trump is a polarizing figure. And it's odd thst Ben Carson stepped up to endorse trump. Especially considering what trump said about Carson.and what Carson previously thought of trump.
So, perhaps he's projecting a bit about his own position. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Roy Jacobsen said...

"No one can rebut the point that Cruz is polarizing."

And Hillary, Bernie, and the Donald *aren't* polarizing?

Roy Jacobsen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Qwinn said...

Seriously. In a normal crowd, the "polarizing" smear would just be annoying. In a crowd with a communist, a scandal ridden unindicted felon and a carnival clown, Cruz is easily the least polarizing of the four. Thank you for drawing attention to that. Consider the smear rebutted several times over.

Brando said...

"Seriously. In a normal crowd, the "polarizing" smear would just be annoying. In a crowd with a communist, a scandal ridden unindicted felon and a carnival clown, Cruz is easily the least polarizing of the four. Thank you for drawing attention to that. Consider the smear rebutted several times over."

It's all relative. Cruz certainly would have his work cut out for him, but he is much better positioned than Trump (and I believe many times smarter) to win this one. In a normal year against a strong Democratic candidate, Cruz would probably be toast. But up against Clinton I think he's much closer to 50-50.

Trump would be a virtual impossibility. When over 60% of the general public say they will in no way ever cast a vote for you, you have a lot of ground to make up. That'd be hard for a skilled politician, much harder for a sociopathic lunatic with no qualifications who leaves disgruntled enemies everywhere he goes. To suggest he can win is to fool yourself. I think a lot of Trump fans are starting to realize this.

walter said...

I guess these two have buried the hatchet over the stabbing story. Maybe when they greet each other, instead of handshakes, they engage in some playful faux jousting.
How's Chrstie doing these days?