March 23, 2015
Ted Cruz goes all John Lennon... [AND: I'm sorry I started out like this!]
ADDED: Here's the full video of the announcement:
AND: I'm watching. And right at the beginning — at 1:38 — he says "Imagine a little girl, growing up in Wilmington, Delaware." Whoa! You had me at little girl, growing up in Wilmington, Delaware... I was a little girl, growing up in Wilmington, Delaware!
ADDED: Let the record show, that at 4:58, I cried.
AND: I'm sorry I led off with the joke on "Imagine." This is a truly powerful speech. Just brilliant.
ALSO: Here's the full transcript.
I see that Think Progress has an article titled "Ted Cruz Just Laid Out The Most Anti-Woman Agenda Yet." I've listened to the whole speech and I can't imagine what it refers to. I've read the article at the link, and I really don't know. Seems to be that Cruz supports policies that, in the opinion of Think Progress, would not serve the interests of women.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
183 comments:
This has to be a hoax like the moon landing!!
How can he deliver such a stirring speech without a tele-prompter!?!? It's just not possible!!
All kidding aside.....he needs to re-work the microphone, and ear monitor. They make him look Frankenstein-ish.
I agree, great speech.
I say this as a fan - he has got to lose that smug, know-it-all expression. It totally detracts from an appealing message.
Cruz's candidacy is pretty weird. He's a Senator, even a first-time Senator, and they tend to make terrible Presidents. He's running almost against his own party. He's very young. He doesn't want to be VP, even though he would be great at that.
I don't know what makes Ted Cruz run, but I think it's that he actually wants to be President. Which makes makes me think maybe he should not be.
Hillary Clinton will have Ted Cruz for breakfast. Actually, an appetizer.
GOP is finished. Four reasons:
- GOP has no actual accomplishments.
- GOP has no women leaders.
- GOP has no love for American science.
- GOP has no immigration plan.
Today, 3/23, HRC became the 45th POTUS.
Thank you, Ted.
Barack Obama doesn't seem to want to be President. He certainly doesn't act like a President. Maybe we should like him more for that.
I do not like Ted Cruz's politics, but I respect his intelligence and abilities. The reason the left hates him so much is because he's such a formidable spokesman for the far right wing.
I question his temperament and judgment. He's young, highly ideological, aggressive and ambitious. I do not think he would make a good president.
I'm listening to this in the background. He really is a good speaker, and his story really resonates with me - my Dad lost his job in the late 1980s which thew my collge plans into disarray.
I don't know if this is a complement or an insult, but in many ways he really is the Right's Barack Obama (except actually smart and qualified) in that he is pitch perfect in hitting the issues that animate and inspire the Right. I'd assume he's anathema to the Left (like Obama is to me), but I'd be very cruious how he plays to Centrists / Swing Voters.
"I question his temperament and judgment. He's young, highly ideological, aggressive and ambitious. I do not think he would make a good president."
Those are not unfair criticisms - we've all seen how badly Obama has worked out.
Nice family.. I got tired of his refrain 'imagine' and fast forwarded.
His wife Heidi Cruz is a managing director at Goldman Sachs, the investment firm she joined in 2005, yay!
Does this mean Rubio is cooked?
May be by 2016, the meme will be anybody is better than Obama.
> He's young, highly ideological, aggressive and ambitious. I do not think he would make a good president to expand the reach of the federal gov't.<
pm317, I thought that would work in 2012. No workee.
Seems to be that Cruz supports policies that, in the opinion of Think Progress, would not serve the interests of women.
Oh, come on! Cruz could have come out and given a lecture on Hilbert Space or Sanskrit love poetry and Think Progress would have said it's "anti-woman". They've got their marching orders, and their product to brand. It's got nothing to do with any sort of empirical reality.
The GOP is going to ride the attmepted ban of the M855 round all the way to 2016. Most Americans won't care either way, but those who care will understand that this was just the opening salvo in a much larger effort to starve to death America's most popular rifles. It's going to be a very effective dog whistle - folks in the middle will ignore it as being too "inside baseball" but it will be an animating force among those who care about 2A.
He has great ideas that will never happen. So dream on and watch Hillary get to nominate the next two or three Supreme Court justices (all liberal replacing non liberals). That's reality baseball fans. He would get no crossover votes.. none
Well, he'll get the "Huckabee voters", without the extreme negative of being, well, Huckabee.
Even if he won the pube primary, which he won't, he would never win a general election.
I would gladly vote for his wife!
It is a shame that the men are blowhards and better political candidates.
[Heidi Cruz]..adding, “I would work and want to have a career, regardless of if my husband works. It’s not only for the money.”
----------------------
Exactly! I knew this growing up in India 35 years ago.
But her life will be all about supporting his ambitions now. Something is not right with this kind of set up.
I started off wanting to like Cruz (though I am not a SocialCon) but his early debate with Boxer (who I dislike) really put me off. I think Scott Walker is a lot more appealing.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2013/03/watch-ted-cruz-mansplain-the-second-amendment.html
If he debated Hillary he would make her cry. I can almost guarantee it.
He is ultra fast on his feet and very smart. He also believes every word he says.
Think Progress is scum.
His mom was a computer programmer in the 50s-60s. His wife is an overachiever who says she wants a career regardless of her husbands. I don't think he will let them down. See how his wife feels about women and career in the Buzzfeed article I linked.
Imagine a sitting Senator becoming a good President.
(waiting)
I found his speech to be kind of boring, actually. He was most compelling when speaking about his parents, but he limited his description of himself to his 17-year-old, lonely at college, and borrowing money for school self. Which inspires me how?
All the "imagine a country where..." stuff got tiresome after awhile. All of the possible Republican candidates for president are going to stand for nearly all of those items he listed, with few modifications, even Jeb Bush.
At no time in the entire speech did he make a case for why he, Ted Cruz, should be anybody's choice to be president, nor what his particular qualifications or aptitude or plan was for getting the laundry list of "imagine" items enacted into law.
This was an empty, blank-slate, project-upon-me-your-wishes, Obama-2007 type speech. Just the right-wing version.
Sorry, not impressed.
I see that Think Progress has an article titled "Ted Cruz Just Laid Out The Most Anti-Woman Agenda Yet." I've listened to the whole speech and I can't imagine what it refers to.
It refers to the fact Ted Cruz is a Republican, and that Think Progress is utterly, barking mad.
Imagine Ted's not crazy
It's easy if you try
No going around New Hampshire
Telling little girls, "We're all gonna die."
Imagine Ted's a decent, rational human being
You may say he's an egomaniac
But I'm not the only one
Some day, we'll find out the reason
Why all his loudmouth crusades crash and burn.
Making sense of the RWA reaction here is perplexing.
All history shows us that they're fans of the loudest and most emotional ones.
Teddie Cruz seems to fit that bill to a perfect "T".
Maybe they remind him of Rick Perry.
But Teddie seems to actually have a brain cell, or two.
Granted, it's got a big label on it stating "USE ONLY FOR MASSIVE RHETORICAL EXCESS AND WILLFUL DISREGARD OF REALITY", but at least it's directed toward a neurological activity of some sort.
Ted Cruz's inspiration for going into politics was Orson Welles' broadcast of The War of the Worlds.
Imagine President Walker opposes fuel from corn subsidies and enacts by emergency order a new subsidy for fuel from cheese.
Imagine President Walker's Little White House retreat being a Lake House near Madison.
Imagine Ted Cruz being Ambassador to the UN sent to shut the place down.
R&B, the pharmacy tech, is outraged at Cruz.
Imagine !
I see him as a Supreme Court nominee by Walker.
"War On Women" worked fabulously in 2014, so let's do it again in 2016!
But when Cruz is on the Supreme court, will he apply Canadian Laws?
The "most anti-women" line left me scratching my head, too. I think they write these headlines before the event and then try to hammer whatever shape of peg they get into a square hole.
Cruz can be a senator from Texas for as long as he likes, and he would make a very good Supreme Court associate justice.
POTUS?
Not so much.
The problems that this country faces are going to require someone who has a demonstrated ability to actually get things done legislatively and administratively. Cruz has no such record in elected office.
He needs to stay in the Senate.
I do think this makes it easier for Scott Walker because Cruz will force Huckabee out and make Bush look even more liberal, probably taking the necessary rhetorical potshots at Bush in the debates, and leaving the "acceptable conservative" space to Walker.
He lost me at the government shut down.
I think Hillary is probably corrupt but I would take her over Cruz...
Michael K - you really do spend a long time not getting over your butthurt, don't you?
If you were really a surgeon, you might prefer seeing a GI specialist about all those hemorrhoids of yours. Have they been bleeding?
You can schedule to have them excised, if need be. There are more conservative measures, but you strike me as the more dramatic type. A stapled hemorrhoidoxepy might be available. Ask your (real) doctor if that might be right for you.
>He lost me at the government shut down.<
senator ted cruz personally shut down the fed gov't in 2013 lol you be proggtarded.
--I think Hillary is probably corrupt but I would take her over Cruz…
And thus our Republic dies.
trumpetdaddy said...
"Cruz can be a senator from Texas for as long as he likes, and he would make a very good Supreme Court associate justice.".
Were he Catholic, he'd make a great bishop. A great pope, even. But, you know, there are no fewer than two Ted Cruzes. There's the brilliant FedSoc lawyer that we got to know earlier in his career. Go back and listen to some of the cases he argued, this guy was an electrifying advocate. And then there's the opportunistic, hyperpartisan, tea-party douchebag that he's played since his election to the Senate. Whether he would make a good justice depends on which of those two personae is the act and which the real man.
Incidentally, I would say that we could memorialize this as the day when last rites were read over Rick Santorum's ambitions, but truth to tell, those have been in the tomb a lot longer than was Lazarus.
"That's reality baseball fans. He would get no crossover votes.. none"
Who was the last Republican nominee who could articulate the conservative political philosophy. There are a lot of people out there whose experience with Republicans has been verbal ineptitude, old man on lawn, and patrician technocrat. Weird idea: nominate someone with conservative ideals and who can argue them eloquently.
>And then there's the opportunistic, hyperpartisan, tea-party douchebag that he's played since his election to the Senate<
compared to what dingy harry reid? who is for wetbacks but was against wetbacks back in the day.
I made it to 8:45.
It must be for women.
I look forward to Ted Cruz Derangement Syndrome in the months ahead.
>
It must be for women.<
the proggtarded metrosexual spake
Calgary Cruz is from 2-3 countries isn't he? Are we sure he is even eligible?
I see that Think Progress has an article titled "Ted Cruz Just Laid Out The Most Anti-Woman Agenda Yet." I've listened to the whole speech and I can't imagine what it refers to.
It refers to the continuing dishonest dastardly diabolical lie that the left is substituted for a program
garage mahal ♤♡♢♧ said...
"Calgary Cruz is from 2-3 countries isn't he? Are we sure he is even eligible?"
Sure? Nope.
Sun song: dear lord man, no wonder our country Is fu**ed! Corruption over someone who has a strong viewpoint and believes in the Constitution?
I am sorry for your lack of ethics.
Cruz just one of several young, articulate, very smart candidates. Hillary is an old bag who will blow her top when confronted with one of these guys' sharp tongues bathed in honey and arsenic.
Doubt he can make it to the finish line but there will be a place for him either on the ticket or in the administration.
The lefties' heads will be spinning like Linda Blair's when all that are running are announced.
The Think Progress article was written long ago and was plug and play for whoever announced first.
trumpetdaddy, Simon, and R&B have it right. Cruz is DOA
Weird idea: nominate someone with conservative ideals and who can argue them eloquently
The process eliminates them before they get that far. Its self destructive and since Reagan, the Democrats and the MSM are pretty good at setting up the traps.
I already feel bad for his wife. So much potential, so wasted.
Holy Cow!!
My comment was highlighted by Instapundit.
I'm ready for my close-up, Mr. DeMille
@madAsHell, he should have attached your name to it.
From the evidence, it's Obama all over again.
People swoon over such crap these days.
Look for an estrogen cloud.
>
Calgary Cruz is from 2-3 countries isn't he? Are we sure he is even eligible?<
nah 2 douchebag canadoh and usa. he went with usa. effin hillarity birther
BTW, The Cruzes are both Harvard grads..
I've listened to the whole speech and I can't imagine what it refers to.
Where have you been? There doesn't have to be anything that this refers to. It's enough that a leftist group has proclaimed it. Now people like ARM, Garage Mahal, and madisonfella can take that ball and run with it.
Why only the focus on his short term as senator? How many cases has Ted Cruz argued and WON before the US Supreme Court? Is it 8 or 9?
>
Look for an estrogen cloud.<
metrosexual fantasy. eff u
Ok, while your right-wing Obama here might not even be eligible, having watched the video, I'll give you the non-conservative's take on his obvious strengths:
1. He brings Bill Clinton-esque "daddy issue" sob stories into his political biography.
2. As with increasing numbers of Texans these days, he's got a Hispanic background that he integrates into the Anglo-American backdrop by being a more liberty-driven firebrand than Patrick Henry. So his father's coming of age in a repressive Cuba (that he escaped) makes that seem more "real".
3. He's a decent rhetorician.
4. He's capable of putting together decent legal arguments. This might also dovetail with a lawyer's typical mind for making everything abstract. A strength when emoting and politicking (especially to your base), while leaving oneself prone to rational clusterfucks.
I'm good at calling this. Listening to the video in realtime and just heard him mention the same Patrick Henry that I referenced earlier.
He will be shit at making policy and likely while leading, but he will be very good at rallying y'all.
5. He's the plutonium-power equivalent of an energizer for your Evangelical "base".
He's definitely working the old coalition as best he can. Despite being Baptist, his Catholic background will appeal to conservatives who remember when Catholics migrated to Reagan and, I suppose, to conservatives who for whatever reason, find Catholicism attractive/appealing to their sensibilities these days (e.g., Newt Gingrich. Not sure if he represents some kind of trend, but it's definitely a decent rallying point for theo-conservatives increasingly desirous of some powerful political-religious show-of-force against ISIS, etc., a la the old clashes of centuries ago).
I have mixed feelings about the speech, not being religious at all. But it is a strange feeling to hear someone boldly state the profound ideas of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution without apology, as if their stark grandeur was contemporary. It will be interesting to see how it is taken.
If by some miracle Cruz were to become president, he would be a good exercise for becoming better at sifting through actual policy and political rhetoric. He talks about education as if the problem with education was primarily what we're doing at the primary/secondary level.
Our problem with education is that we expect every damn kid to go to college. This is a farce, and one represented in a very bipartisan way. Even Cuomo doesn't get it. The only one who does is Mike Rowe.
Wow. Replace "Cruz" with "Reagan" and the commenters here are rerunning 1978.
Cruz is speaking right past all you haters and you don't even know it.
The kind of emotive, sloganeering, vague campaign that Obama ran in 2008 only worked because the Democrat field that year consisted of Hillary, Biden, and Obama.
Then he got the great gift of John McCain as his general election opponent.
If Cruz wants to run the same playbook, right-wing version, he's going to have a far tougher row to hoe because the Republican field this cycle is so bloody strong.
Also, Republicans don't generally go in for that type of empty emotional appeal and after nearly 7 years of Obama doing it, they are reflexively suspicious of it, even if it is coming from their side.
That being said, what other type of campaign could Cruz have possibly run, given his lack of any actual accomplishments this soon into his elected office career?
If this guy didn't take a page from Obama's playbook, I'd be surprised. The tone is almost exactly the same as Obama's "Jefferson-Jackson" speech, just transposed onto the mindset of the political right. He's choreographed every detail from start to finish, the ending music, and he got every note down pat. I predict that a campaign of his would be appealing in a way equivalent to how Obama's was in 2008 - and he will certainly be able to master his rhetoric, patriotism and consideration of audience to avoid offending as many outside his base as Obama was able to avoid offending in 2008.
Whether he studied and/or implemented these details intentionally or not, he's kicked off a very clever start to whatever it is he's up to.
Reagan was a successful, two-term governor of the nation's largest state who had run for president before when he was elected in 1980.
He'd also been on the scene nationally since the 1950s and 60s as a political commmentator.
Cruz is many things but the second coming of Reagan he is not.
I am a fan of Cruz as a senator and if by some miracle he wins the nomination I will vote for him in the general election over any Democrat, but he would be far better served staying in the Senate. So would the nation.
I didn't find this speech brilliant.
Friendo said...
"trumpetdaddy, Simon, and R&B have it right. Cruz is DOA"
I didn't say that he was DOA, I said that there are serious constitutional concerns hanging over his candidacy. If Cruz directly, explicitly, and convincingly addresses those concerns, he might yet win me over. I have some anxiety about his lack of experience too, but I'm not necessarily opposed to him.
I want Cruz to be the nominee just for someone to be a strong advocate for conservatism, both fiscal and social.
It's been a long time.
For now, Cruz has my vote in the Republican Primary. But he can lose it, as others have.
sunsong said...
"He lost me at the government shut down.
I think Hillary is probably corrupt but I would take her over Cruz..."
He shut down the government over spending. Our country has printed and borrowed 2+ trillion dollars a year over the last 6 years. That is more than 10% of our total GDP and our growth rate is ~2% over that period. We are living through a war on math and you are retarded enough to pick an obvious liar and a completely amoral witch over a person who recognizes that math always wins in the end.
When the inevitable correction comes because of Obama's war on math they will blame it on austerity and retards like you will suck it up. Government interference caused the mortgage crisis and we got a bunch of new bank regulations written by goldman sachs to kill off small banks. People who vote for Obama and Hillary are proving why democracy will always fail in the end.
After 7 years of the um, ah, I, me teleprompter reader, compared to all the DC hacks, compared to all the apologetic RINO conservatives, this refreshing.
He overdid the imagine bit. The fuzzy family stuff gets stale quickly. But there aren't many who could do what he did.
Won't make him president, but will help to set the GOP apart from old, tired Dems.
And thanks to AA for appreciating the brilliance of the speech. In her neck of the academic woods, that requires true open-mindedness. It's rare.
Biggest applause line: "a president who will stand unapologetically with the nation of Israel."
Remarkable. Likely to become even more compelling when the Iran deal is announced.
Listen ... Up .... People. Ted Cruz ... Is ... Not ... A .... Boomer.
>
1. He brings Bill Clinton-esque "daddy issue" sob stories into his political biography<
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY6VAy9y_iQ
Casting Crowns - Jesus, Friend of Sinners
So the speech was being fed to him via the ear monitor, interesting.
He gives me the heebie jeebies
Vicki from Pasadena
>Ok so when can we just vote for Jesus as president?<
eff "divide and conquer "
Pharrell Williams - Happy (Official Music Video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6Sxv-sUYtM
So the speech was being fed to him via the ear monitor, interesting.
He gives me the heebie jeebies
----------------------
Woman: "How do you write women so well?"
Melvin: "I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.”
It was a very good speech. Not sure If I want him as president though.
eff the proggtarded
OneRepublic - Counting Stars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT_nvWreIhg
Bastille - Pompeii
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F90Cw4l-8NY
Harvard law.
Took the Supreme Court Clerkship.
Obama wasn't offered one.
Took big law firm job.
Obama wasn't offered one.
Actually taught several courses at a law school.
Obama was an adjunct lecturer.
Was Attorney General for third largest state in the country, and argued Supreme Court cases.
Obama was a community organizer and argued in the neighborhood.
First time Senator.
Well there's that, since both of them it the Senate and started running for President.
As rhetoric goes It's a lot better than Obama's hope and change. But it's still rhetoric. Imagine no IRS? Not sure if that's even a good idea. We need an agency thst deals with our taxes. Why tear it down when you'll need it again anyway? Mend it, don't end it.
And so,the rhetoric becomes as revolutionary as Obama's rhetoric. Getting rid of the IRS is not realistic. The same way as there being no countries and all the people living life in peace is also Unrealistic. That's why it's called Imagine. It's utopian thinking.
I don't want a revolution or a utopia.. I want practical steps that reduce size of govt. It doesn't even have to be an incredible reduction. Start with small steps. Cut spending across rhe board. Lower the tax rate, get rid of Obamacare.
Let's not talk about getting rid of the IRS. That's just dumb.
jr565,
Cruz has talked about this before. When he was talking to Mika about the tax code. He said something like, "People say I don't compromise. That's just not true. I want a flat tax. But anything that gets us closer to a flat tax, I'll take. And then I'll ask for more."
I'm sure it's the same with the IRS.
It's dealing with Overtunes Window. If you want to move it in your direction, you can't start with the compromise position.
Imagine no IRS? Not sure if that's even a good idea.
Passage of the FairTax would do more to right this country than all the politicians (past and present) put together.
Imagine Jeb Bush or Mrs. Clinton giving that speech or anything close to it.
You can't.
Ann will still vote for Hillary as many times as she can on election day.
my Dad lost his job in the late 1980s which thew my collge plans into disarray
Was that a pun?
Cruz has rhetorical skill. More so than Walker. But the entire country isn't ready for either candidate. I imagine a compromise down the road. Perhaps the hapless NEB is listening and learning. The race has just begun.
I think he's taunting Walker. He's daring Walker.
Cruz is so mean.
Poor Walker can't give a speech while facing backwards.
Maybe GLH would help.
PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
(paraphrasing) that he despises Walker like Palin.
Thanks for playing, "peanut butter."
"Everyone Pays Their Fair Share Tax evasion and the underground economy cost each taxpayer an additional $2,500 every year! But by taxing new products and services consumed, the FairTax puts everyone in the country at the same level at the cash register. Further, only legal residents are eligible for the prebate. Learn more. -
yet another reason cops should have gone after Garner and his loosies. Thwt underground economy is costing ME money.
And how would selling loosies work in a fair tax economy? Supoose because of the fair tax the tax on cigarettes naturally go up? If the Garners of the world decide to sell the cigs without paying the fair tax, won't the cops have to go after them the same way?
Also, I'm not sure that the money from a sales tax will in fact bring in the same amount as an income tax, despite what the proponents of it say.
How about, a flat tax instead of the Fair Tax?
chick,
It was only a throwaway joke about Walker's bald spot.
Sheesh.
I would vote for him but I would rather he throw a few bones to the middle. A flat tax looses votes and doesn't make things a lot easier. Eliminating deductions for insurance, interest, pensions, travel, state taxes, local taxes, ..., makes things simple and fair.
victoria: "So the speech was being fed to him via the ear monitor, interesting."
LOL
So, the left is recycling that one are they?
I guess they are still feeling a little "down" that they weren't able to hang that one on W during the Kerry debates.
victoria is always good for a laugh when you don't have the time or stomach to brave reading Democrat Underground.
"I've listened to the whole speech and I can't imagine what it refers to."
I thought along the same lines.
PBandJ_LeDouanier: "I think he's taunting Walker. He's daring Walker."
Of course, it's neither.
But it's funny how you run screaming from the room rather than confront the obvious contrast with President Teleprompter.
If he has an American born mother then he is a natural born citizen - this was settled in the case of John McCain who was also born out of the country but whose father was an American citizen. I did not know this before.
He is a very smart guy who might appeal to Hispanics and Evangelical Protestants and to orthodox Catholics and Jews. And to right wing conservatives. And if he was the candidate then most Republicans would? support him - query.
And then he might win because the old coalitions would be falling? - like the story in the book The Last Hurrah where the suburbs suddenly upset the city coalition.
I heard a guy say on the radio that he would crawl over broken glass to work for Ted Cruz and I wondered why, but not after this speech. Though I still support Walker.
I started out pretty negative on Cruz (he seems smarmy to me) but this speech actually stirred me. Republicans so often are poor speakers (think Bush, McCain, a million others) that hearing and seeing one who actually enjoys standing on stage, who can deviate seamlessly from the prepared remarks, who knows how to use pauses and dynamics ... well, it was quite surprising and moving to me.
I will give Cruz a much closer look.
It was only a throwaway joke about Walker's bald spot.
55% of US Presidents have had significant hair loss. 36% had a mature hairline, and 9% had no hairloss whatsoever.
The unrealistic preference for no hair loss (driven by gays and younger women) contrasts their preference "manscaped" torsos and genital regions.
Personally, I think it's all a control issue.
And how would selling loosies work in a fair tax economy?
There would be no tax on loosies. Sell them for whatever profit you can get.
The Fair Tax is the best way to deal with an "underground" economy.
I don't care WHO you are... illegal alien of Mafia Don...at some point you will have to trade those dollars for something you need that is sold retail.
BOOM!
Thanks for your tax contribution, Juan.
"But it's funny…"
Well, I was coming from a different, not at all serious, angle.
Hint:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GeF7A05zQ8
PS
I never intended to make such a fuss. Walker's bald spot is not even worth my orginial silly comment in this thread. Never mind a bunch of explanatory followups.
PPS
Talking about BHO's supposed inability to count states or speak w/o a teleprompter are no less lame than a quip regarding Walker's spot. Remember when BHO met with the Rs in Congress to answer their questions. He totally schooled all of them at once. As a result the decided they would never do that again--not with cameras in the room that could document and report the damage.
Cruz spoke so well because he spoke from his heart. Like Reagan, he truly believes in what he says.
When Obama ran he used a teleprompter because he never believed what he said. Only now is the mask slipping off his face.
Chick,
The only hair that matters was Reagan's. And, next to Saddam, it's hard to do better.
[Don't get too worked up, I'm kidding.]
Most all of the comments at the "Think Progress" piece concern Cruz' eligibility . I guess the author struck the wrong chord.
Wait, Althouse:
As a "little girl" you were raised in Wilmington, Delaware?
I thought you attended elementary school at Brookside Elementary (which is decidedly not Wilmington).
I also know, or at least I think that I know based on things you wrote years ago, that although you didn't specify which one, you attended a high school in North Wilmington (before your family moved to New Jersey, a thing I'm also aware of solely because you wrote about it). But then, at that age, you weren't a little girl, now were you?
What an extremely odd post of yours, is this one. Innit.
@r,l: It's possible that this whole post was a lark. It does rhyme with snark.
Sure, Ted Cruz's mom did some awesome. That doesn't mean you were raised in Wilmington, and that also doesn't mean that Cruz is Right for Now.
As always, time will tell.
Running for President 19 months before the election? I don't think Joe & Jill America will like that.
Well, now, Mr. Chickelit, of course when I think of rhyme and rhythm in this sort of context, I think of this, which thought leads
inexorably to this, alas. Experience sucks, but so it goes.
Cruz argues for the immigrant experience. What is wrong with so many of you that you can't see it?
(This is not my taking a stance, by the way. It is my pointing out a sight to see.)
Don't like the video. He has his back to the camera during some of the most moving parts of his announcement. Who's the idiot who was in charge of logistics and production for this event? Get another camera for chrissakes.
I like Cruz but would prefer a governor. I thought the speech was ok. Did not blow my socks off.
Watch the video of his announcement (Althouse linked it ^ ). Consider.
Then, if you think I'm wrong, tell me why, explain to me why, persuade me otherwise (without resorting to insults or, worse, sloppily easy characterizations of me).
This is an important exercise, and make no mistake about it.
November 2016, anyone?
It is going to be a fun election. One thing that I think Cruz does is to raise the bar on the Republican side. Walker is probably in the running, along with Cruz. But who else? How is JEB going to do when contrasted with these two younger, more articulate, candidates? Both Walker and Cruz can speak from the heart, and JEB probably cannot. As contrasted with his older brother, he was always considered the smarter, but more introverted, Bush.
And, then there is Hillary! A horrible retail candidate, horrible speaker, old, poor speaker, etc. A lot of people would probably vote for Cruz in the primaries just to see him grind her up and spit her out in the debates. The obvious question being whether it could be done without coming across as a male bully, which is really the only way that she has a chance against any of these candidates.
It should be interesting. I am not sure who else, besides those three (Cruz, Walker, and JEB) can get traction, until one of them starts to spin out.
jr685
"Thwt underground economy is costing ME money."
Why should I care you want to play a rigged game, you want it rigged, and you complain it costs you money? I name you a chump and a thief.
This is an axiom. It is true in all places and at all times.
There will always be black markets.
There is another song Cruz might have been going for at the Christian University...
En la cruz en la cruz do primero vi la luz
Y las manchas de mi alma you lave
Fue ally por fe yo vi a Jesus
Y por siempre feliz con el sere
Link to song
It's the Christian's turn.
Fair tax is a loser. Flat tax is okay.
(Fair tax instantly confiscates 25% of your savings, by taxing again downstream what you've already paid income tax on and saved. Savers are not going to see this as fair.
Epstein has a complicated work-around for it involving all income obligated to go into IRAs, and taxed when withdrawn; and current savings not being in those IRAs. Explain that to the masses.
Just go flat tax.)
I like Christians, except the dogmatists. They miss the point of allegory.
I thought it was a pretty good speech. My sister, who is evangelical texted me to ask if I was in Lynchburg, which reminded me that Cruz was giving his speech there. Bottom line, Cruz is running for the nomination with an appeal to the religious vote that no other serious Republican contender will be willing to take. This gives him a decided advantage in the nomination process. Conservatives will be torn between him and Walker so he’s going to go for Christians. When Cruz began his run for Senate I believe his support was in the low single digits, roughly where it is today as he kicks off his campaign. So he’s done it once before. He shares a characteristic with Walker in that he stays on message. Like Walker he can respond to hostile questioning (see Candy Crowley interview http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/10/06/ted-cruz-smacks-down-candy-crowley-saying-its-blackmail-offer-separat) without responding in an aggressive manner but without conceding the premise of the “have you stopped beating your wife” questions that the media throws at Republicans.
Harold Bloom, Derrida, Levinas, all atheists, read the Bible more lovingly and with more depth than any Christian I've come across.
I wonder why that is.
Cruz puts himself on the wrong side right away.
"Imagine innovation thriving on the Internet as government regulators and tax collectors are kept at bay and more and more opportunity is created."
Here he's saying he would do away with net neutrality, and allow the big telecom players to dictate terms and provide tiered access according to who can pay.
The rest of the speech was a grab bag of sentimental imagery, ("imagine a furry little puppy being saved from the death chambers of ObamaPetCare, and nestling in a little girl's loving arms, a little girl named America"), pandering to his audience, and magical thinking, with no suggestion as to how the magical transformation of America he fabricates will actually take place.
In other words, a by-the-numbers stump speech by an aspirant to the Presidency.
For all the Democrats and many Republicans who think that Cruz's ideas for reforming the tax code are just too radical, you may just be in a minority. This is tax season and most Americans are (1) angry at having to spend hours doing their taxes, or (2)paying someone else to do them because they are too complicated, or (3) they don't think taxes are fair. So there's this poll that says that 59% of the American people think that the nation's tax system is DEEPLY FLAWED:
http://www.people-press.org/2015/03/19/federal-tax-system-seen-in-need-of-overhaul/
Dear Robert, imagine how much further the Internet would be today if it had been regulated by the government from the beginning.
Well, that does it. No stump speeches for Presidential aspirants.
"Harold Bloom, Derrida, Levinas, all atheists, read the Bible more lovingly and with more depth than any Christian I've come across."
You have just taken the prize from Lillian Hellman.
"And thus our Republic dies."
It's already dead, pal!
What we have is a Potemkin Village America, and everyone pretends--and some actually believe--the plywood and canvas flats are actually three dimensional structures and the players reciting their lines are real and mean what they say, and that this country is not on the precipice of collapse and the men behind the curtains are actually wizards, and not con-men and slick operators, turning everything they can into a fast buck, heaving the rest into the overflowing landfills that will eventually be all, along with jails, that makes up our country.
I like atheists, except the dogmatists. They're always trying to convince me that it's wise to believe in nothing.
"Well, that does it. No stump speeches for Presidential aspirants."
Oh, no...that's part of the game. It's just foolish to think the speeches are anything but bullshit writ large.
Atheists are very smart, especially the atheists that believe that space aliens seeded life on earth.
Robert, I'm surprised that you are so down on the country, given that your side has been in charge for so long. And please don't try to tell me that isn't true, given you full throated support for the current President.
Belmont Club says the point is the reaction.
One being cheering supporters thanking him for sticking it to the nostrums of the left.
If you've been sticking it to the nostrums of the left all along, the speech may not seem so great, I'd guess.
The thing with someone like Cruz is he promises he can win (and apparently govern) through open confrontation and winning people over with argument and rhetoric (not unlike what Obama promised in 2008, and that's not exactly how things turned out). Thing is, it's easy to make those promises when you're a Senator and can stand on principle.
I'd rather see if he were able to prove himself by governing a state or a large city, where we can see if his style works--if he truly can accomplish anything by building support, cutting favorable deals with opponents, and moving the needle with the electorate.
Cruz's supporters often point to Reagan as an example, saying "no one thought Reagan could win or govern, either" and that's somewhat true, except Reagan did govern the largest state for two terms, and he did also expand his constituency (Reagan Democrats, southerners who until recently were rock solid Dems, suburban moderates) so that he could get enough allies not only among his own party but beyond, and pass his (then considered radical) agenda.
Can Ted Cruz do that? Let's see how this campaign goes--if he can build support outside of his expected base, it'll be worth watching--otherwise we may have just another audition for a commentator job on Fox News.
"This is tax season and most Americans are (1) angry at having to spend hours doing their taxes, or (2)paying someone else to do them because they are too complicated, or (3) they don't think taxes are fair. So there's this poll that says that 59% of the American people think that the nation's tax system is DEEPLY FLAWED:"
That's all true, the problem is (much like health care reform) there's very little agreement as to what people want to change it to. That's why we're unlikely to see anything more than incremental change.
I'd love to see at least some simplification--phase out most of the deductions, credits, etc., in some revenue-neutral way. I'd even be in favor of replacing some of the income tax with a national sales tax, to decrease the disincentive of earning (as well as the incentives of sheltering income). But I don't expect us to ever see a truly flat tax, or one completely free of complications (at least for those with complex income streams, particularly businesses).
I'd be more excited about a proposal for change that has a realistic shot of happening. But the flat tax seems to get proposed every cycle, but never gets much traction (remember Jerry Brown proposing that back in '92?).
I don't want a one term lawyer/senator as my President. I'd like some executive experience in my Presidents. Its not about the speeches you make; its about the work you do.
PS As I've said before I get my inspiration elsewhere.
PPS I believe the evangelical voter is different today than 15 years ago. But Ted will need to leave Lynchberg to discover that.
"I don't want a revolution or a utopia.. I want practical steps that reduce size of govt. It doesn't even have to be an incredible reduction. Start with small steps. Cut spending across rhe board. Lower the tax rate, get rid of Obamacare.
Let's not talk about getting rid of the IRS. That's just dumb."
Absolutely. That sort of talk is fine for think tanks and rallies of the faithful, but in political leaders we should expect realistic results.
As long as we have government--and even libertarians agree we need SOME government--the government will need revenue. And it will need an agency/department/office dedicated to collecting that revenue, and rules governing how. Sure, they can get rid of the IRS but they'll just have to replace it with some differently named body that does the same thing (maybe "Bureau of National Revenue"). It's just not a serious idea.
Now, someone promising to reform the IRS--change the way it operates and rules it runs under--that's worth listening to. It can and should be done, and the only debate is in how.
I'd be pretty impressed if someone like Ted Cruz gave a speech at some inner city venue, or otherwise in front of a crowd that was full of the people he'd need to convince, rather than the pre-convinced. When Rand Paul spoke and met with students at Howard, that took political guts--he knew there'd be some mockery and at least criticism from some students--but it gave him a chance to get his message to those who likely don't hear it often. It also demonstrated that he knows the libertarian message needs to spread.
Cooke nails it
Ironically (maybe not) that song is about a New World Order, where there are no territorial boundaries and no religion. It is a decidedly UN American song that discourages "In God We Trust" and allows illegals to just come on over. Pretty alarming really.
The use of that song actually gives an insight into the lack of allegiance that one born of 3 nationalities has.
Cruz is not a natural born Citizen, and not eligible.
Personally, I felt like his speech was designed for ready made campaign ads. Just use a short clip of a couple of the imagines, play music and have Ted say that he approves this message.
"- GOP has no actual accomplishments.
- GOP has no women leaders.
- GOP has no love for American science.
- GOP has no immigration plan."
Interestingly....
The Dems have no actual accomplishments.
The Dems have no women leaders. They have Hillary, who says she ought to be our leader because it would be nice to have a woman leader, wouldn't it? But that's not the same thing.
The Dems have no love for American anything, not even science. The only science that the Dems have any use for is the sort that can be used against America. Bioengineering, frakking, the space program, vaccination, nuclear power, and tons of other science stuff they generally oppose. They support global warming, but only to the extent that they can use it to force America to give up technology and move back into a medieval theocracy.
The Dems have no immigration plan. No, literally, they have no immigration plan. They have an immigration agenda. Their plan doesn't admit immigration is a problem, so it doesn't seek to solve anything. It's just, "Open the door. 100 million low wage workers is bound to be good for social justice, wage equality, and America right?"
wildswan said...
"If he has an American born mother then he is a natural born citizen - this was settled in the case of John McCain who was also born out of the country but whose father was an American citizen. I did not know this before".
Wrong. Senate Resolutions (like Resolution 511) have no force in law. McCain needed a statute to be considered a US Citizen (8 US Code 1403), as such he is not a natural born Citizen. Besides that the Resolution is wrong on its facts, according to 7 FAM, military bases are not US territory.
Cruz was born in Canada, and admittedly had Canadian citizenship until recently. He was naturalized at birth due to his US Citizen mother which made him "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" according to 8 US Code 1401 (1).
Cruz is a naturalized citizen, and not eligible.
He mentioned my home town! He thinks I'm young, just a girl! He makes me laugh, makes me cry, just like those bad boys from Liverpool! Dear Diary, I "imagine" (tee-hee!) I've finally found The One!
Sounds like somebody we know has a new crush. :)
kzookitty
I'm just excited for all the people who talk about Republicans not being able to get the Hispanic vote to go all out against Cruz and pretend he isn't real hispanic.
Also excited for the people who called "birther!"and said it was racist to talk about Obama's birth certificate to start talking about Cruz's eligibility.
Very excited for people to attack Cruz regardless of his ethnicity, the same people who so longed for a "Wise Latina" on the Supreme Court.
Cruz brings out the crazy hypocrite left. But they won't notice.
Simon said,
"garage mahal ♤♡♢♧ said...
"Calgary Cruz is from 2-3 countries isn't he? Are we sure he is even eligible?"
Sure? Nope".
Again you push this silly argument that the "Common Law" mentioned in Minor v. Happerset, 88 US 162, 167 (1874) is British Common Law, when it is fact law of nations.
British Common Law does not consider the rights of "subjects" to expatriate, nor does it distinguish the parents nationality when considering who is a "natural born subject", only "birth within the realm".
However the quote from Minor DOES consider the nationality of the parents when defining "natural born CITIZEN", yet you still think that they are talking about BCL when they say, "the Common Law of which the founders were familiar" (Ibid, 167), even though the definition quoted mirrors Law of Nation, Bk 1 Ch. 212 ("the natural born citizens are those born in a country of parents who are its citizens")
Deny deny deny
Consider this (Vattels "Law of Nations" checked out by G. Washington, and overdue by a couple hundred years, found and returned)"It sat open on his desk all the time" (It was him speaking from the grave)
http://theweek.com/articles/494173/george-washingtons-221year-overdue-library-book-timeline
Racism can never be abolished, so we shouldn't talk about ending it, that's unrealistic. Reasonable persons with responsible brain activity know racism is part of the human condition, like taxes via the IRS, and hence treating the symptoms (reducing the yearly bonuses of those who targeted/target conservatives for persecution might be a good concept to have some meetings and committee discussions about for example) is the only pragmatic, non-extremist position.
Anyone who thinks we don't have all the time in the world to delay justice for the IRS goons attacking their American subjects isn't denying justice, merely being practical.
And cutting spending, in fact reducing the rate of growth of debt spending by less than Nancy Pelosi wants, isn't realistic wingnuts. The practical solution is 20 more Trillion dollars of debt within 14-16 years, at leaset certainly we can all agree that 98% of our Congress believes this. Question begging: Just who do these 2 per centers think they are?
Clarence Thomas?
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 (1874)
Cruz is not an eligible natural born Citizen.
Not much love for Cruz here. Hard to see him going very far if he can't get you guys to back him.
Mick in all your studies have you come across any time in history where power was able to adjust rules in its favor?
Why, with Harvard by his side, would Cruz care if he fits or doesn't fit your idea of what his eligibility for POTUS is?
Harvard power makes Cruz eligible no matter what words are written anywhere to the contrary. That is what power is, that's why people kill and die for it.
Might makes right. He who has the gold makes the rules. Etc.
If you're gonna change to this, try harder. Be smarter. Reliance upon Christ has been shown to be a proven winner but sometimes only in the long term.
"Robert, I'm surprised that you are so down on the country, given that your side has been in charge for so long. And please don't try to tell me that isn't true, given you full throated support for the current President."
Hahahahaha!
You obviously have me confused with Rupert Koch! I have offered no support for our current president, "full-throated" or otherwise. I did not vote for him--in either election--as he is just another slickster, a pretender who is serving the same masters as our past several presidents going back decades: the financial/corporate/military/intelligence/police state complex. He is also a mass murderer and war criminal.
The reason the left hates him so much is because he's such a formidable spokesman for the far right wing.
Just wondering: do you consider Obama a centrist?
Brando said.... "The thing with someone like Cruz is he promises he can win (and apparently govern) through open confrontation and winning people over with argument and rhetoric...."
It's a striking idea: Enough with the dog-and-pony show, enough with the smoke and mirrors, let's just have it out. Let's get the divisions we all know are there into the open and force the issue. Were he a Catholic, I'd say he'd make a good pope. But whether that approach can win the Presidency, we'll see.
Moneyrunner said...
"This is tax season and most Americans are (1) angry at having to spend hours doing their taxes, or (2)paying someone else to do them because they are too complicated."
Any polling data for that point specifically?
I. love. it. Progressive birthers. Heh.
MayBee said...
"Also excited for the people who called 'birther!' and said it was racist to talk about Obama's birth certificate to start talking about Cruz's eligibility."
And they will, if they have to. If that's the card they have to play, they'll play it without any hesitation or shame.
its funny. How certain libs are now becoming burners. But, for the record, Ted is eligible, because his mothere was a natural born citizen. You don't. Have. To be born. On US soil.
jr565 said...
"Ted is eligible, because his mothere was a natural born citizen. You don't. Have. To be born. On US soil."
I don't think that anyone claims that you have to be born on US soil. Not anyone with a grasp on the governing law, at any rate; that isn't the issue. Forget Mick and the loony birthers; they have no idea what they're talking about. Read Blackstone. If Cruz's parents had been out of the United States on the errand of the United States (paradigmatically, but not limited to, ambassadors), as were John McCain's, there would be little doubt that he would be accounted natural-born; but they weren't. Why? Because that's what the English law of natural-borns with which the framers were familiar said. And interestingly, had things been the other way around, had Cruz's father been the citizen and his mother the non-citizen, it seems very likely that he would be accounted natural-born; but they weren't. Because that's what the English law of natural-borns with which the framers were familiar said. How we extrapolate from the understanding of the English law that framed the original understanding of the clause is a difficult question. The answer isn't clear. My position is not that Cruz is ineligible, but that there is a serious and substantial question about it, and he just isn't a good enough candidate to risk a constitutional crisis.
He lost me with the laundry list. It is fun that that Cruz is unapologetically running an ideological campaign, but unless he is gifted with an equally blunt opponent I expect a catastrophic flameout. HRC would be the Nixon to his McGovern.
It is important to remember that President Obama ran on identity. Everything else he proposed or promoted was an abstraction.
However, since Cruz will not be running against an incumbent of either the calculating or abstract kind, an interesting dynamic could occur. His bellow on the right could trigger an equally bellicose reaction on the left. Perhaps both parties will tumble for their own demagogue at the same time. That would be interesting.
The answer isn't clear. My position is not that Cruz is ineligible, but that there is a serious and substantial question about it, and he just isn't a good enough candidate to risk a constitutional crisis.
I'm not sure it would be a constitutional crisis.
But I do appreciate you pointing out how unsettled this area of the law is. Obama people acted as if it was a terrible thing to even wonder, in these modern times!
MayBee said...
"I'm not sure it would be a constitutional crisis."
If there is any plaintiff who has standing to litigate this question, it's the second-placing candidate on the ballot. Neither John McCain nor Mitt Romney chose to file suit; I don't mean to imply that Obama's eligibility is subject to serious question, but if anyone had standing, it was McCain or Romney. If the Democratic candidate loses, especially if it's Hillary, she will file suit. And they will find a Clinton-friendly district judge to say yes, just as Republicans found a friendly district judge before whom to litigate the Executive Amnesty cases that have been filed down in Texas. With the clock ticking, and with the controlling law so opaque, I think that it's fair to call that a Constitutional crisis that would dwarf Bush v. Gore.
Most Americans believe that the natural-born citizen clause is vestigial at best, that it was put into the Constitution to screw Alexander Hamilton, and has no ongoing effect. And to the extent they think it has any ongoing effect, they are wildly overconfident about their newly-coined intuitions about the clause's reach; if you doubt that, just look at the reactions to any suggestion that Cruz is ineligible. Humans have a wealth of cognitive biases, and just as for many Democrats, it's about to be obvious that Cruz is isn't eligible, for most Republicans, it's about to be just as obvious that he is. We have a model for this in Burwell: If you talk to Democrats, especially Democratic lawyers, they simply cannot believe that the plaintiffs are serious about this case. It is so obvious that the challenge is utterly meritless. But if you talk to Republicans, even Republican lawyers, we simply cannot believe that anyone seriously doubts the outcome. It is so obvious that the challenge is utterly correct. Both sides are convinced that their position is straightforward and that there is no serious basis on which the court can go the other way. That's why Burwell arouses such ire, because both sides are utterly convinced not only that their opponents are wrong but that there is no serious argument the other way. Now imagine that same high-voltage certitude when the Supreme Court is deciding who will be President of the United States under enormous time-pressure.
To paraphrase Justice Stevens, we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of that year’s Presidential election, but the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the constitution, the court, and even the rule of law. That seems like a crisis to me.
I wish I knew what Professor Althouse sees as brilliant here. I agree with Charles Cooke: part infomercial, part megachurch preacher (and I say that as one who probably agrees with at least 90% of his positions.)
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415849/ted-cruz-should-try-speaking-people-instead-them-charles-c-w-cooke
I have heard that he is brilliant but the charisma he tries to project is very phony and off putting to me,
I should add, by the way, that if I'm right about how most Americans feel about the natural-born clause, it's entirely consistent with how, in my view, most Americans feel about the Constitution as a whole: As a firm and resolute bulwark against other people doing things that I think are stupid. It does happen, but it's rare, that someone says "you know, I really like [program X/candidate Y/police-tactic Z], but, darn it all, the Constitution just doesn't allow it," especially when it's a close case.
"I see that Think Progress has an article titled "Ted Cruz Just Laid Out The Most Anti-Woman Agenda Yet." I've listened to the whole speech"
It must have been the part where Cruz mentioned his Mom breaking glass ceilings as a woman in technology. Plus, the part about Heidi baking (gasp) cookies for her kiddie business.
Clearly, anti-woman of Cruz to celebrate women doing dangerous stuff like breaking glass and degrading themselves with traditional tasks like food preparation, let alone that whole icky capitalism stuff.
ThinkProgressive sees it this way: Womyn folk should be keep sandal-clad and uterus-vacant, reading feminysty poetry in college seminars; they should know their feminist place.
He's young, highly ideological, aggressive and ambitious. I do not think he would make a good president.
Sounds like the one we have now...
Robert Cook at 6:43 am
Here he's saying he would do away with net neutrality, and allow the big telecom players to dictate terms and provide tiered access according to who can pay.
So...I'm sort of slow. I like little word pictures so I understand difficult concepts, like "net neutrality".
If big telecom players can dictate terms and provide tiered access according to who can pay, that is like tiered access to automobile brands, based on who can pay, isn't it?
If I want access to a Cadillac or a Mercedes, I have to pay more than for a Hyundai Accent. But with Car Neutrality, everyone would get access to a Hyundai Accent. Wouldn't that be special? It wouldn't work out that everyone has equally great access to cars with Car Neutrality, everyone would have equally lousy access to cars.
Net Neutrality needs to be smothered in its crib. Now.
"Net Neutrality needs to be smothered in its crib. Now."
You're either a dope or a shill for the telecoms.
Was Cruz behind the Liberty University students being required to attend the speech?
Was mandatory student attendance part of the deal he made with school officials to do his announcement there?
The speech was during convocation. Students are required to attend convocation. http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/jerry-falwell-jr-explains-why-liberty-university-students-had-to-attend-ted-cruz-s-announcement-rally-20150323. Nothing to it.
A freshman Senator who can give a great speech! What was considered a liability in 2008 is now a strength. Times change. Anyway, Cruz has little chance of getting the nomination within his own party let alone the White House. But you all know that.
Hey, if nothing else, he will shake things up a bit. That HAS to be a good thing!
"You're either a dope or a shill..."
That's one thorough and well-reasoned argument, RC.
Also, this: http://www.people-press.org/2015/03/19/federal-tax-system-seen-in-need-of-overhaul/
“The public sees the nation’s tax system as deeply flawed: 59% say ‘there is so much wrong with the federal tax system that Congress should completely change it.’ Just 38% think the system ‘works pretty well’ and requires ‘only minor changes.’”
So much for no reason to abolish the IRS. To quote a recent media darling, "Burn this bitch down!".
The left is saying pretty much exactly the same thing about him as they did about Reagan at this point. Supposedly Alan Dershowitz said Cruz was the smartest student and best debater he had at Harvard. i don't think he should be underestimated.
I should add, by the way, that if I'm right about how most Americans feel about the natural-born clause, it's entirely consistent with how, in my view, most Americans feel about the Constitution as a whole: As a firm and resolute bulwark against other people doing things that I think are stupid. It does happen, but it's rare, that someone says "you know, I really like [program X/candidate Y/police-tactic Z], but, darn it all, the Constitution just doesn't allow it," especially when it's a close case.
Simon:
Well done in pointing out the truth most ducked.
Well done, and thanks be for you.
So...I'm sort of slow. I like little word pictures so I understand difficult concepts, like "net neutrality".
If big telecom players can dictate terms and provide tiered access according to who can pay, that is like tiered access to automobile brands, based on who can pay, isn't it?
If I want access to a Cadillac or a Mercedes, I have to pay more than for a Hyundai Accent. But with Car Neutrality, everyone would get access to a Hyundai Accent. Wouldn't that be special? It wouldn't work out that everyone has equally great access to cars with Car Neutrality, everyone would have equally lousy access to cars.
Net Neutrality needs to be smothered in its crib. Now.
Mathmom, in fact you are no more of an expert than anyone else. Also, you are not smarter. As for knowledgeable? Time still will tell, in terms of all of that.
Wait for it.
Are cars, as a product, a good analogy for information, as a product?
Start with thinking over that question.
Although that's not the best question, it is a good one to consider. I say: Consider.
Do you think that net neutrality is about what individual people (consumers) can afford? As in, for example, your example (my objection to your analogy notwithstanding), a car?
This is a serious question I am asking you.
f I want access to a Cadillac or a Mercedes, I have to pay more than for a Hyundai Accent. But with Car Neutrality, everyone would get access to a Hyundai Accent. Wouldn't that be special? It wouldn't work out that everyone has equally great access to cars with Car Neutrality, everyone would have equally lousy access to cars.
Look at your analogy closely. Consider it. And consider how others before you have used such an analogy.
There is the power to buy whatever is on offer.
There is the power to limit what is on offer.
Post a Comment