"Nobody in Congress likes him. Nobody likes him anywhere once they get to know him... He's got an edge that's not good. You can't make deals with people like that, and it's not a good thing. It's not a good thing for the country. Very nasty guy."
Donald Trump, talking about Ted Cruz this morning on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." My transcription.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
92 comments:
I have a liberal friend who lives in Texas. He has asked me when I thought the Republicans would start to notice just how "nasty" of a person Cruz is. I told him that, as someone who reads the right-wing blogosphere on a daily basis, that Cruz's prickly personality was simply not yet an issue for conservative voters as far as I could see. If Cruz pisses off his Senate colleagues, well, so much the better in this election of the revolt against the "insiders".
Well, here it is: Trump raising the question of Cruz's nasty disposition.
My response: if Fiorina or Carson raised this issue, well, okay. But Trump? This is the very eidos of "pot calling the kettle black".
The gloves are off as its down to the last two.
@Donald J Trump
@Jesus, such a loser. Washes peoples feet. Very dirty. Would be nothing without daddy. Mom wasn't a virgin, needs to be said. SAD.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-tweets-throughout-history_568a93d3e4b0b958f65c274c
The concern trolls are coming out in force. No doubt they have our best interests at heart,
I think Trump is bumptious but not a fool and he has the right enemies.
It's official folks. Trump is running to win (and not as some had stated a spoiler to blow up the Republicans for Hillary's benefit) and Cruz is in his mind the only serious primary challenger to him.
If Trump is right about Cruz, that makes me like him more. I want a guy to cram it down the RINOs throats and especially the Democrat's throats and not go along to get along.
Yeah Donald support of third trimester abortion is nasty, VERY nasty. Maybe Ted shows a video of that with your voice of support, using every last inch of your persuasion to everyall avail. Dead babies is what Donald used his influence to advocate; they and we will not fail to remember.
Ted never supported that, unlike you and your New York values, quite separate from William Frank Buckley Junior values, which is why he trashed you and your nasty New York synecdoche of America, Kaufman with standing.
Any man that uses the name William F. Buckley ought to atone, capable (unlike Trump) being above our pay grades.
I was wondering this morning what % of the fathers of baby boomers served in WWII? All the prez candidates except Sanders are baby boomers. I can only think of one, Bush. There must be more right?
https://cumulus.hillsdale.edu/Buckley/
"The server's security certificate is revoked!
You attempted to reach cumulus.hillsdale.edu, but the certificate that the server presented has been revoked by its issuer. This means that the security credentials the server presented absolutely should not be trusted. You may be communicating with an attacker.
Back to safety
Help me understand"
Oh that is gonna stop the truth? Is that what the thought pattern resembles?
WHAT ABOUT THE PHYSICAL BOOKS DUMBSHIT?
I got me some, you bet your ass I do.
https://cumulus.hillsdale.edu/Buckley/
Trump is not nasty? Cruz is nasty is a good way, against the go along get along Republicans. Trump is a something else, a real piece of work.
Cruz may be nasty but he is brilliant. Really brilliant. Trump has street smarts and New York smarts. And though Trump brags about his Ivy League pedigree he transferred to the University of Pennsylvania'a Wharton Business School from Fordham. Trump is a loud mouth bully and braggart.
Cruz not so much.
cubanbob said...1/17/16, 11:45 AM
It's official folks. Trump is running to win (and not as some had stated a spoiler to blow up the Republicans for Hillary's benefit)
Well, Bill and Hillary Clinton might have thought that. It's still not 100% clear where he wants to go, but he's done a few things, like promising not to run third party, that tilt toward the idea he really thinks he can win and that that's what he wants. Even if Bill Clinton had something to do with getting him started.
and Cruz is in his mind the only serious primary challenger to him.
Just the only one, right now, who might deny him a plurality in Iowa. Ctuz isn't anywhere near the lead in New Hampshire, or nationally. Trump just doesn't want to come in second anywhere.
Damn the torpedoes and fire at will, Gridley.
Another bullseye branding job by the master. Yes, Jeb is the not eager nor energetic one. And yes, Ted is the nasty one. They really are that way and dressed in the persona he brands them with.
It's the business model of the WWF that Trump has long supported. It has its full cast of Villains that the fans love to hate. Each one is special in some way and some of the fans are for them, but the vast majority of the fans enjoy hating them as they get their just rewards.
What Trump has made public is that Ted Cruz's support is based on him playinga WWF Mr Nasty for the liberal hating Conservatives. Cruz wins all the arguments and Cruz takes no prisoners.
But that is a show from a WWF ballet. Real people who have had to deal with that kind of theater act do not like Cruz's tricks and will not cooperate with him.
I write this from the SC Teaparty Convention where I got to see Cruz and Trump two hours apart yesterday afternoon. Cruz came in, talked to the folks, signed some signs. He was cool, down to earth and GENUINE!
Trump was aloof, surrounded by muscle, and all about me, me, me. Cruz didn't mention Trump. Trump - must be those New York values - snarkily went off on Cruz at the end of his remarks and got soundly booed in the process.
Compare and contrast? I was right there, and I saw it with my own eyes.
Cruz didn't look too bad today on Fox News Sunday. (in demeanor)
"I was wondering this morning what % of the fathers of baby boomers served in WWII? All the prez candidates except Sanders are baby boomers. I can only think of one, Bush. There must be more right?"
The reason for the baby boom was all the returning soldiers from WWII.
I know that it is not politics but I spent 22 years selling capital machinery. One of the thing I learned is to NEVER badmouth the competition.
The way you handle competition is by talking nice about them. Say that they are good but your offer is better. "So we are down to Acme and Worldwide (my offer)? One of your prime considerations is going to be delivery, right? Even more with price. Check with (give some references)about our ontime delivery record."
In Trump's case, mentioning that Cruz may not be qualified by citizenship is fine because it allows Trump to point out that he is. This sounds more like straightup badmouthing and I don't think that works out well. Trump is better off emphasizing that he gets along with everyone than that Cruz doesn't.
I also never badmouthed Acme even if they got the order. My response was always "I am sorry I lost the order but Acme makes a good machine. Not as good as Worldwide but a good machine. Let me know if I can be of any help."
That way they come back to me next time or if Acme turns out to have overpromised.
John Henry
I'm wondering if Cruz gulled Trump a little, until he (Cruz) could fight from a position of strength.
Cruz may or may not be "natural born" under the Constitution.
What about tradition & precedent?
We have over 200 years without a president having been born outside of the US (or in early days a citizen at the time of the Constitution)
Doesn't tradition and precedent count for anything?
John Henry
At the risk of being pedantic I know Arthur was rumored to have been born in Canada. Officially, he was born in the US.
"Nasty" = unwilling to retreat from conservative principles and actually "talks back" to the lefty powers that be as well as Republicans who seemingly can't wait to work with dems to enact dem policies.
Trump really might be a Democratic stalking horse.
he has the right enemies.
Which why I want to be able to support him. He reminds me too much of Hitler and Mussolini though.....
Speaking of energy, the other day I saw a news story making fun of Trump for playing soccer in HS. In the 50s. Only wimps, weenies and pussycats play soccer. It is an unAmerican game.
They had a picture of his yearbook page. He played soccer. Also varsity baseball, football, basketball, bowling, track(?) pretty much throughout his time at the school.
Sounded pretty high energy to me.
I wonder what sports Cruz played?
Or Jeb? All I cound find was an article that said he played a lot of tennis, without mentioning whether he was on the school team. OTOH:
“I drank alcohol and I smoked marijuana when I was at Andover,” Bush said, both of which could have led to expulsion. “It was pretty common.”
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/02/01/tumultuous-four-years-phillips-academy-helped-shape-jeb-bush/q6ccyHNOtP1n6kqDokMBfK/story.html
John Henry
I would also note that while Carson, who seems to be the invisible negro, is down, he is still solidly in 3rd place nationally.
Ahead of Rubio
Ahead of Jeb
Ahead of Christie
Ahead of Huckabee
Etc.
Yet we never hear of him. I call racism. Would we see this shunning of the #3 candidate in the media if he were white?
John Henry
Trump clearly fights to win. It may not be endearing but it is exactly what Republicans said McCain and Romney lacked. If he's this scrappy in the primaries imagine how he'll be in the general.
Nobody in the Senate likes him?
Sorry, Carly, I'm changing my vote to Cruz!
Did I see a HuffPo link? Are they still covering President Trump in their Entertainment section?
How's that working out for those geniuses?
Trump is just finishing off his final threat.
Then he'll help wipe Ted off and make him his VP.
Nasty is a good trait in a VP
Everybody including his family dog loves bombastic Trump.
"Oh no, Ted Cruz is a nasty, mean Republican!"
Did you read that in the New York Times, Donald?
I would expect a chief executive to be able to win, as opposed to whining about how nasty his opponents are. "Oh that Putin, he's such a bully!"
What pTb is not a conservative? Gasp. Who knew? Willing to go after someone who is, If necessary to increase his odds of saving the country. Mr C. should have accepted pTb’s first offer. Best I can tell, pTb never took the easy path when faced with a hard choice. He might even be the last libertarian realist standing, good to know I may not be alone. Someone who looks in his mirror every morning as he takes the curlers out and says, "oh, Lord, if not me who?" You can't win negotiating a change in a contract if the other party won't enter the room because they are certain there's nothing in it for them, even if just saving face and not having to feed their children potatoes. Which is what we did to the nuclear weapons scientists living in their secret cities in Russia, to keep them from being employed by the highest bidder. No farmers outside their walled cities where the West paid for the guards, that we turned into prisons, farmers that would not, could not trade with them since they had no money.
Granted these very smart people had always looked down their noses at the proles and lived the high of life of the communist elites, but if every day you're reminded of what the West did to you when you look at the hollow cheeks and stunted growth of your children who had to live on only the potatoes and cabbages you could grow in your back yards, I sure do hope they've all died off by the time they have a chance to get even. No surprise why Mr. P. is so popular.
If I were permitted to vote in the u.s. election I'd vote for whichever SoB I thought would put a tail on the Israeli nuke boats, on the odd chance their 40 year-old captains would launch on New York, D.C. and San Francisco after they had no home to return to, and Haifa and their children are cinders due to the U.S. arming the Persians and preventing them from dealing with the problem. Will teach the West that sins of omission are as fatal as those of commission and why MAD doesn't work. Something Mr. Reagan understood.
A hard lesson to learn by those who stand by and do nothing save leak a few of Mr. Clinton’s crocodile tears as they listen to rape victim screams in central park, pleased that she eventually shuts up so they can go back to sleep when she gets her throat slit after providing good entertainment to the gang who promised her if she didn’t fight, they’d let her live. "What? arm the helpless? Use the Left's precautionary principle to close the door on any community that has demonstrated a lack of western values? at least until this changes, or they themselves have violently purged those elements from their society. why should we do this? What are a few victims more or less?" “What does it matter?”
What, oh beautiful snake, why did you bite me, the only one who would take you in and who has shown you nothing but kindness?" "You must be the one in a million bad apples, and we certainly have more and worse. So I know I have died for a good cause. Thank goodness my government will care for my children." What is a Greek tragedy? That which we do to ourselves, knowing the result. Good bye suckers, we can't say we weren't warned, by the aggressors no less.
The Donald is an alpha male, and we need that in a president.
I think he would put Cruz on the Supreme Court rather than have him for vice president.
Chris Christie would make a good V-P.
Digging out from under the present mess is going to be a long, slow slog; there is not going to be any magical transformation in just a year or two.
A commenter at Lem's, MamaM, pointed out that Peggy Noonan pointed out pretty much the same:
MamaM said...Peggy Noonan, on the second thing Hillary and Cruz are both learning, which according to her is:
'...something most people learn by their 20s: It matters what people think of you. It’s important that people have a high opinion of your essential integrity, trustworthiness and good faith. It matters that they like you. Mr. Cruz, when challenged by Mr. Trump, could have used some backup from prominent Republicans, but they didn’t throw him a lifeline. John McCain: “I am not a constitutional scholar on that, but I think it’s worth looking into.” You know why Mr. Cruz had no backup? Because almost no one who works with him likes him. They haven’t experienced him as a trustworthy person of good faith. They waited, as people do, for a chance to hurt him, and when they got it they did.'
January 16, 2016 at 8:18 PM
I have not noticed Cruz's nastiness. OTOH, Trump's nastiness is one of my problems with him.
Cruz is brilliant. His rhetoric is effective He does not back down from a fight. Plus I agree with many of his positions.
But every time listen to him, I think, "Watta dick.
Trump IS the media stalking horse this election. But we will see when the voting begins.
Hagar:
Good point. There are a lot of positions to be filled and roles to be played in order to realize positive progress. This will not happen overnight, and it will not be accomplished by a single man or woman. Each individual has their strengths and weaknesses. The People should consider them when they decide to hire someone for a particular position in a particular role.
As to his Senate colleagues not liking him, that's understandable given his grandstanding and ill considered strategies.
'...something most people learn by their 20s: It matters what people think of you. It’s important that people have a high opinion of your essential integrity, trustworthiness and good faith. It matters that they like you. Mr. Cruz, when challenged by Mr. Trump, could have used some backup from prominent Republicans, but they didn’t throw him a lifeline. John McCain: “I am not a constitutional scholar on that, but I think it’s worth looking into.” You know why Mr. Cruz had no backup? Because almost no one who works with him likes him. They haven’t experienced him as a trustworthy person of good faith. They waited, as people do, for a chance to hurt him, and when they got it they did.'
January 16, 2016 at 8:18 PM"
Chickelit it may come as a surprise to you but to conservatives the lack of support from Noonan and McCain is a plus not a negative for Cruz supporters.
" JAORE said...
Cruz is brilliant. His rhetoric is effective He does not back down from a fight. Plus I agree with many of his positions.
But every time listen to him, I think, "Watta dick.
1/17/16, 1:35 PM"
That's what I like about Cruz. He's a dick to all I'm against. Trump is also a dick but not as much or as big against those I'm against. My preference is Cruz but I can vote for the smaller dick, Trump, in the general.
By their wives shall ye know them. Cruz is married to a Goldman Sachs banker. I bet she made him sign a pre nuptial agreement. Real men of the people don't marry bankers......The majority of Donald Trump's wives have been east European supermodels. Can anyone state with absolute certainty that these women have not been influenced by their Commie education and have not, in turn, passed that Commie influence along to their husband. There's something a little off about a guy who marries so many women with Commie backgrounds.....Finally, there's Marco Rubio. Rubio married a Dolphins cheerleader. OK, a Dolphins cheerleader isn't a Cowboys' cheerleader, but allowance must be made for the fact that Rubio lived in Florida. I'd have to say that of the top three candidates, Rubio has chosen the bride that best exemplifies American values.
@William: Don't forget that Rubio also has a barco largo.
If both parties and Donald Trump are afraid of Ted Cruz..then he is doing something right...CRUZ 2016!!!
Chickelit it may come as a surprise to you but to conservatives the lack of support from Noonan and McCain is a plus not a negative for Cruz supporters.
Noonan was writing about both Rodham and Cruz and so her point was apolitical.
wendybar said...If both parties and Donald Trump are afraid of Ted Cruz..then he is doing something right...CRUZ 2016!!!
"Both parties" are also afraid of Rubio.
Q. Who aren't "both parties" afraid of?
A. Hillary! and Jeb! They were the chosen ones -- the ones banked on.
@William I fail to see the issue with Heidi Cruz: beautiful, brilliant, competent, capable of bringing home the bacon but also a loving supportive wife and great mother. To me, that's winning a lottery. A strong man has no problem with such a wife.
@Chickelit Noonan jumped the shark years ago. Conservatives don't take her seriously anymore.
Which why I want to be able to support him.
Sure, we believe that.
He reminds me too much of Hitler and Mussolini though.....
Nice, that Hitler/Mussolini reference. But you want, I mean really, really want … to support Trump. We can all see that. If only he wasn’t so Hitler-ish.
Cruz made a broader tactical mistake on the New York values. With a wife providing the household's primary income from work at a Wall Street firm and his senate campaign dependent on a loan from Wall Street his hypocrisy on this issue will be a major point of attack going forward. Trump will hammer him on this. You can't feed at the trough and then bite the hand that feeds you without looking like a complete asshole. He could have just said 'liberals' but he wanted to spike the ball on Trump with the 'New York' quip. He is overly impressed with his own cleverness.
That's what I like about Cruz. He's a dick to all I'm against. Trump is also a dick but not as much or as big against those I'm against. My preference is Cruz but I can vote for the smaller dick, Trump, in the general.
Cruz has zero crossover appeal and conservative purists see this as a badge of honor. They are willing to electorally die for that cause.
AReasonableMan said....Cruz made a broader tactical mistake on the New York values. With a wife providing the household's primary income from work at a Wall Street firm and his senate campaign dependent on a loan from Wall Street his hypocrisy on this issue will be a major point of attack going forward. Trump will hammer him on this.
I think Trump has already disparagingly referred to them as "the hedgefund guys."
Trumps attacks have about the same level of vocabulary as a 4th grader who's figgured out all the 4 letter words, but knows they're not allowed to use them yet.
Tell me again, chickelit, how George H.W. Bush had crossover appeal but that troublesome Ronald Reagan would lose the middle
I enjoy that fairy tell every time John McCain and Mitt Romney tell it.
Trump and Cruz are my top candidates, along with Carson. Cruz is my #1 choice, but not by much, because I prefer Donald Trumps immigration position.
But this is making me lean more and more towards Cruz. Trump is really coming off nasty here towards Cruz, while Cruz continues to be polite and friendly toward Trump.
Trump may want to calm down and move away from the keyboard for a few days. These tweets his sending out are making many of my friends roll their eyes towards Trump.
Blogger chickelit said...
That's what I like about Cruz. He's a dick to all I'm against. Trump is also a dick but not as much or as big against those I'm against. My preference is Cruz but I can vote for the smaller dick, Trump, in the general.
Cruz has zero crossover appeal and conservative purists see this as a badge of honor. They are willing to electorally die for that cause.
What if it's Bernie vs Cruz in the general?
> I think Trump is bumptious but not a fool and he has the right enemies.
He may not be a fool, but my impression is that he does everything on the fly. Many problems require study and planning and working on the fly will get you dead. Does Trump have the discipline to deal with those sort of problems? I see no evidence of it. OTOH, he's probably better at hashtag war than the Obama administration.
AReasonableMan: Cruz made a broader tactical mistake on the New York values.
Cruz's tactical mistake with New York values was that Trump has way more bandwidth than Cruz, so Trump's misrepresentation will become what people think Cruz meant.
Unlike the pundits and media, the audience at the debate seemed much more receptive to Cruz on the issue than Trump's "response."
Has it ever occurred to anyone that Trump meter wanted to be president and still doesnt, and his presidential run was never more than a publicity stunt?
And in a turn of events that can only be described in terms of "the producers" he's wound up being successful.
With each and every new and more absurd remark he makes, his support keeps growing.
He must be thinking... really!?
@Levi Starks: I've thought that all along. I wouldn't be flabbergasted if he found a way to get out, but at this point it might be pretty awkward.
Pot, meet kettle.
Everybody remember when the "well liked" John McCain ran for President and the press continued to fawn over Senator Maverick?
Those were good times. Good times.
chickelit said...
That's what I like about Cruz. He's a dick to all I'm against. Trump is also a dick but not as much or as big against those I'm against. My preference is Cruz but I can vote for the smaller dick, Trump, in the general.
Cruz has zero crossover appeal and conservative purists see this as a badge of honor. They are willing to electorally die for that cause.
1/17/16, 2:16 PM"
Sanders has how much crossover appeal? If nominated he will be the McGovern of this year but older and dumber than McGovern was in 72. I'll grant you different times and different demographics so a Sanders general election campaign loses 40 states instead of 49.
Hillary, yes another great candidate if only she was not so unlikable,corrupt and not facing an FBI investigation. She indeed he has great crossover appeal (not) and the Blacks are going to turn out in even greater numbers for her in a contest between her and Cruz. Yeah, sure. I'm gonna bet the ranch on her winning against Cruz with all of her favorables and all of Cruz's negatives.
ARM what exactly did Cruz do that is so terrible? He set up a line of credit with GS to borrow against his assets? Wow! I must be a bad guy too since I did the same thing and I'm a nobody. By the way what kind of a feminist supporter are you when you deride a man because his wife makes more money than he does? He could have easily been pulling high six and maybe even a seven figure income a year with his tremendous legal skills in private practice instead of going into politics. Didn't Hillary make a lot more money at the Rose Law firm than then AG and later Governor Clinton make while in office. Trump can't speak too harshly about hedge funds since they provided him with funding for his business ventures and I would be surprised if he doesn't have any of his personal wealth invested in them.
On the Supreme Court, Cruz does not have to like or be liked - it will be only him and his vote.
He may not be a fool, but my impression is that he does everything on the fly. Many problems require study and planning and working on the fly will get you dead.
I think a major criticism of Trump (and Carson, and Fiorina) is that they have zero foreign policy training or experience. Iran is going nuclear and we are about to pay them $1.7 billion dollars, on top of releasing $100 billion to the mullahs. The stupidity of the Obama administration is mind-boggling. Jimmy Carter instigated these freezes. Was he wrong? Are we re-opening our embassy in Iran? Why on God's green earth do we want a nuclear Iran with $100 billion dollars of financial support?
We are entering an incredibly dangerous age. As important as the economy is to me, I am nonetheless voting foreign policy in this election. Which makes me a Rubio man.
You can read about Mr. Trump's positions here. Notably absent is any discussion whatsoever of foreign policy. That's a danger sign, I think, above and beyond his character flaws.
Hagar,
The personal politics on the Supreme Court is reportedly different than your comment suggests, at least in one direction.
Levi Starks said...
Has it ever occurred to anyone that Trump meter wanted to be president and still doesnt, and his presidential run was never more than a publicity stunt?
And in a turn of events that can only be described in terms of "the producers" he's wound up being successful.
With each and every new and more absurd remark he makes, his support keeps growing.
He must be thinking... really!?
1/17/16, 2:46 PM
Donald Trump as Max Bialystock? Original and so New York! So who is going to be Trump's Leopold Bloom, Roger De Bris and Franz Liebkind in order for him to perform his getaway role of Lorenzo St. DuBois?
"he has the right enemies.
Which why I want to be able to support him. He reminds me too much of Hitler and Mussolini though....."
He reminds me a little of Mussolini but M was very popular with Progressives in the 30s. Hitler was never effective governing, Musso was.
I am not a big fan of Trump but I am beginning to think he is in it for keeps and has some governing potential.
"AReasonableMan: Cruz made a broader tactical mistake on the New York values."
I agree with that. He should have avoided that issue although it might help him in Iowa.
I still think Cruz would be better on the Supreme Court.
"We are entering an incredibly dangerous age. As important as the economy is to me, I am nonetheless voting foreign policy in this election. Which makes me a Rubio man."
I agree it is going to be very dangerous. Rubio, however, does not strike me as the guy to deal with Iran. I am hoping Trump picks someone like Bolton or even Daniel Pipes as Sec State.
They know what is going on and understand the region, which no US official at high level has understood since WWII.
cubanbob said...
ARM what exactly did Cruz do that is so terrible?
Nothing, as long as he acknowledges that his entire career is dependent on New York values, as exemplified by the finance industry, for whom his wife works and paid for his Senate career.
After a lifetime of dealing with the warlords of New York and New Jersey state and city governments I think Trump himself is best qualified to "understand" Middle East politics.
As for Secretary of State, I think it will be more important that he or she "understands" Victoria Nuland's building and has the skills and intestinal fortitude to do something about it.
Unless the next president correctly identifies Leviathan State as one of the reasons our situation cannot improve, you lot are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Our foreign policy will not improve if the State Department is not retaken by Americans for America. Our economic policy will not improve unless regulations are withdrawn. And on and on...
I really want to like Cruz, but I find him far too slimy and untrustworthy. To me, he's the type of guy who would smile broadly while shaking your hand, while stabbing you in the back.
What does Ted Cruz really believe? Hell if I know. Oh, yeah, he says things he supports, but does surprising little as senator to do those things. He wants to end common core. Where's his bill to do so? Fact is, Cruz hasn't done shit as Senator, so why should we believe he'll do anything but posture as president?
Another problem I have with Cruz is the same problem I had/have with Obama. "Everyone" says he's brilliant, but I've yet to see it. (He doesn't know what Carpet Bombing is, so how smart can he be?)
AReasonableMan said...
cubanbob said...
ARM what exactly did Cruz do that is so terrible?
Nothing, as long as he acknowledges that his entire career is dependent on New York values, as exemplified by the finance industry, for whom his wife works and paid for his Senate career."
Saving, investing and borrowing aren't specifically New York values. Indeed even working in banking isn't an especially New York occupation. Crony capitalism, rent seeking, hypocrite Leftist politics is more in tune with the values of certain areas of New York City although the same can be said for most Democrat controlled urban areas.
I saw Tromp interviewed by George Stephanopoulos this morning. Tromp was a complete bullshitter. Two examples. GS asked about Tromp's position on the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo, which allowed the government to use eminent domain to take property from a private owner for the purpose of turning it over to a private developer who proposed to develop the property the way the government liked (GS summarized the holding that way, so Tromp can't complain he didn't understand the issue). Tromp ignored the Kelo issue and talked about how, if it weren't for eminent domain, the government wouldn't be able to build roads. Does this mean Tromp is too stupid to understand the issue? Or does it mean that he likes the idea of his using influence over local governments to facilitate his development projects?
The other question had to do with appointments to the Supreme Court, and Tromp blamed Cruz for supporting confirmation of John Roberts as a Supreme Court "Justice" (it wasn't clear that Tromp knew that Roberts is the "Chief Justice"; I think he probably doesn't know, because his argument would have been more dramatic if he had referred to Roberts as the "Chief Justice"). Tromp blamed Roberts for the fact that we have Obamacare. And when GS asked him what he would do to make sure he didn't appoint another Roberts to the Court, he said that he would confer with the top people to vet all nominees. But there hasn't been in recent memory any Supreme Court Justice (much less Chief Justice) who was as vetted as John Roberts or who was found to be as reliably conservative as John Roberts. And, in fact, Roberts has been a reliable conservative vote on the Court on a whole raft of issues -- except, regrettably -- the two Obamacare cases. As president, Tromp would not have any more ability than GW Bush had to assure that a Supreme Court nominee would ALWAYS vote the RIGHT way -- our Constitution doesn't contemplate that. But Tromp did display the same contempt for our Constitutional system of three equal and independant branches of the federal government, as Obama did when he condemned the Court's Citizens United decision in his State of the Union address, while the Justices were foreced by convention to sit there and listen in silence. If what you want for president is another Obama, but one who abuses the powers of his office in a different direction, Tromp is pandering for your vote.
Cruz has a punchable lady face.
ARM = I frankly don't know any Republicans who would be offended by Cruz talking about NYC values. Some Democrats, sure. But, in flyover country, which is most of the country, the only reason that anyone looked positively on NYC was that they were attacked by our enemies on 9/11/01. The place is dirty, smelly, crowded and filled with obnoxious, mean, liberal, people, who think that they, and their city, are the center of the universe. I still don't understand why anyone would want to live there. To me, Trump was the loser there, since if I am asked to take sides, I will take the side of the non-New Yorkers almost every time. And, a lot of others in this country (and esp. Republicans) will too. Maybe that is the thing - a lot of people on the left seem to want to live there, if they possibly could, whereas a lot on the right think just the opposite. Which means, to me, that Trump's attack would have worked a lot better if he had been a Democrat, where loyalty to NYC is assumed of any good progressive - Which appears to include you.
It is going to be interesting to see how this attack by Trump works out. The thing that I have noticed about Cruz is that he is, indeed, one of the best debaters I have ever heard, and part of that, with him, is that he is almost always considerate of his opponents. Never name calling, but almost always respectful discourse. So, when we see the two of them, Trump and Cruz, it is almost always Trump who is mean and nasty. Yes, on Cruz's part, this is how you are supposed to debate, because ad hominem attacks are counted against you. But, it still means that he rarely is intemperate. And, almost never as intemperate or a bully as Trump.
Tromp blamed Roberts for the fact that we have Obamacare.
Problem there is that it most likely wasn't Roberts, but rather another of the conservative side. Thing is that the Chief is the one who gets to write the opinion for whatever side he is on. And, if he declines, then it moves down the court by seniority. So, what he could do, and probably did do, was to weaken the majority opinions, by switching sides, when he knew that ObamaCare had the needed 5 votes.
Rubio, however, does not strike me as the guy to deal with Iran. I am hoping Trump picks someone like Bolton or even Daniel Pipes as Sec State.
Did you read Rubio’s essay in Foreign Affairs that Saint Croix linked to above? Sounds to me as if he’s got a clear bead on Iran.
So?
Perhaps I should wander over and read the essay Rubio commissioned be written by a staffer for political effect. Because Rubio has been so stalwart when negotiating with the likes of Chuck Schumer.
It’s important that people have a high opinion of your essential integrity, trustworthiness and good faith. It matters that they like you.
The point Noonan either doesn't get or hopes we don't is that in the Senate, if people have a high opinion of your essential integrity, trustworthiness and good faith, they won't like you.
Ted Cruz is widely disliked by the people who have earned Congress an approval rating below 40% for ten years and at or below 20% since October 2012.
ARM "you can't feed at the trough and then bite the hand that feeds you without looking like a complete asshole". It's true that president Goldman Sachs does look like a complete asshole.
John said...
"Cruz may or may not be "natural born" under the Constitution.
What about tradition & precedent?
We have over 200 years without a president having been born outside of the US (or in early days a citizen at the time of the Constitution)
Doesn't tradition and precedent count for anything?
We've also gone over 200 years without a woman president... and federal government healthcare mandates, and daily Executive Orders - many contrary to majority public opinion, etc etc.
Doesn't tradition and precedent count for anything?
Good god... we've got people entering the country illegally popping out babies like rabbits - and every one of those babies is considered a US citizen, no debate allowed (we're told by RINOs and our friends on the left...)
Cruz's mother (unquestionably a US citizen) moves to Canada for a few years because of her husband's job and gives birth to little Teddy. They move back to the US when Ted is 4 years old and they've lived here ever since - and unhinged birthers like you are out claiming we have a constitutional crisis.
---New York values, as exemplified by the finance industry,
New York values as exemplified by the supplication of the citizenry to their commisars Bloomberg and Deblasio. Ban Salt, Ban Sodas, Ban Guns. Ban carriage rides. Accept women walking nude in public to make money.
Tax cigarettes so dramatically that men make their living selling individual cigarettes. Have their law enforcement forces kill said men while trying to arrest them.
Align with leftist inspired mobs calling for the death of police leading to increasing crime and fear.
Stop the only effective counter terrorism effort in the country.
Those are the current New York values that Cruz is talking about... anti-freedom, petit dictatorial values.
9/11 was 14 years ago and thanks to the left who suppressed our memories of the atrocity, more than a century away. Donald can save those tears,
When media (and others like Mitch McConnell and his Washington DC Cartel) ) say "Nobody Likes Ted Cruz" - they're probably right. No one first term Senator has ever cause more trouble to the status quo in the Senate or the House or the Nation that this rabblerouser - Ted Cruz.
Which is why I kind of love him folks. He's 100% serious about being an outsider - fighting the lobbyist cartel that rules that turtle faced moron McConnell (who might as well be a Dem).
The fact that "nobody likes him in DC" to me means he has won a badge of honor.
Cruz 2016
Trump repeats himself, a lot, you know. He doesn't elaborate very much - he just repeats himself.
He said "nasty guy" three times. He said "not a good thing" twice - three times if you include "no good" He said "nobody likes him" three times (although once it was "Nobody in Congress")
Cubanbob: "I'll grant you different times and different demographics so a Sanders general election campaign loses 40 states instead of 49."
You mean more like Dukakis in 1988 (lost 41 states) than Mondale in 1984 (lost 49) ?
http://www.270towin.com/1988_Election
At that time, West Virginia was a very Democratic state. And California could still go Republican. Iowa, because it is the focus of so much attention early in the race, can always go both ways, and New Hampshire also sometimes votes differently than what you would predict. Sanders would probably carry both Vermont and New Hampshire at least.
Carson is 5th in a South Carolina Republican presidential primary poll (at 9% - Bush is at 13% probably because of Lindsay Graham's endorsement) and he is 4th in general Iowa (at 12%) and 4th in Iowa (at 11%) and 4th in Utah (at 15% - the leader there is Cruz, at 18% to Trump's 17%)
Carson is way down at the bottom in New Hampshire at 3% in a week old poll (Jan 11).
Sammy Finkelman said...
Trump repeats himself, a lot, you know. He doesn't elaborate very much - he just repeats himself.
That's a basic rule of marketing and sales. Ever notice how radio ads always repeat a company's name/website/number a minimum of two, usually three times or more? It drills the information into the head of listeners who would forget it after only hearing it once.
For the record I don't think Cruz is a "natural born citizen."
My reasoning follows two clauses in the constitution. One in the provision itself; "and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
The other is the 14th amendment which reads in part, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States..."
In both cases, it's clear that borders matter. That is "natural born" literally means this type of citizenship is obtained by virtue of where one is born, not due to who one's parents are. In other words, a baby born to American citizens outside the borders of the United States is a citizen but NOT a natural born citizen, while a baby born to non-American citizen within the borders of the Unites States is both.
(Which means John McCain was also not a natural born citizen either, but rather became a citizen by statute, which also explains the distinction between the two.)
Joe you fundamentally don't get it. There two categories of citizens: those who become naturalized citizens (such as myself), they need to go through the naturalization process. The others are not required to become naturalized and are born citizens. Cruz and Obama both fall under the citizens at birth. The founders knew exactly what they meant by the term 'natural born citizen' since it was at the time of the constitution's adoption already a defined term under the common law which is the basis of our legal code. Now without going full Mick Obama might have a problem with him being born a dual citizen and by adoption becoming a triple citizen and not renouncing his other citizenships (Cruz has) in terms of being able to serve as president but at this point the courts aren't about to hear that argument so its moot. The concept of citizen by statute is bizarre since the constitution leaves the very definition of who is a citizen and who isn't a citizen to Congress absent a specific abridgment of the constitution which would be then decided by the courts; that being the intent of the founders. The only conceivable argument that might hold water under your comment would be if Cruz was born in Canada (he was) to an American citizen mother ( he was) and lived his entire life up to now (or at least not lived lived 14 years in the US) in Canada (he hasn't) and decided to run for president. However that isn't the case with Cruz (or Obama). You may not like the guy but he is of constitutional age, not a dual citizen (potential divided loyalty), in full possession of his civil rights (hence capable of comprehending the oath of office)and thus legally qualify to run for the office and serve if he wins.
cubanbob,
A natural born citizen is one who is a citizen by virtue of geography, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
"The concept of citizen by statute is bizarre... since the constitution leaves the very definition of who is a citizen and who isn't a citizen to Congress..."
And congress passes laws--statutes. There is nothing bizarre about it.
"The founders knew exactly what they meant by the term 'natural born citizen' since it was at the time of the constitution's adoption already a defined term under the common law which is the basis of our legal code."
This is a very weak argument since we don't know what the founders meant. The term 'natural born citizen" or 'native born citizen" wasn't entirely set and actually disputed.
The Plantation act of 1740 "allowed any Protestant alien residing in any of their American colonies for seven years, without being absent from that colony for more than two months, would be deemed to be one of 'his Majesty’s natural-born subjects of this Kingdom.'"
So, let's go with that. If you lived in the US for seven years, you are a natural-born citizen!
(Do note that Hamilton's original proposal was that a person be born a citizen. The committee changed that to "natural born citizen", which would imply that they saw a distinction that you are ignoring.
Regardless, this isn't settled and to condescendingly say that it is, is absurd. If Cruz is elected, it CAN AND SHOULD be litigated.
Interesting point from Wikipedia:
The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." This act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the characterization of such children as "natural born," stating that "the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States" while retaining the same residency restrictions as the 1790 act.
These acts were written by politicians very familiar with common law and the meaning of "natural born" and they clearly had a problem with conflating "citizen" with "natural born citizen", further evidence that geography matters.)
Post a Comment