Senator Ted Cruz has not yet reached the point where he can make policy, rather than just make political trouble. But there are already disquieting signs that he is looking out for Ted Cruz — even if that sets back the causes he claims to be serving.The American Spectator via Hot Air
Those causes are not being served when Senator Cruz undermines the election chances of the only political party that has any chance of undoing the disasters that Barack Obama has already inflicted on the nation — and forestalling new disasters that are visible on the horizon.
The most charitable interpretation of Ted Cruz and his supporters is that they are willing to see the Republican Party weakened in the short run, in hopes that they will be able to take it over in the long run, and set it on a different path as a more purified conservative party.
Like many political ideas, this one is not new. It represents a political strategy that was tried long ago — and failed long ago.
In the German elections of 1932, the Nazi party received 37 percent of the vote. They became part of a democratically elected coalition government, in which Hitler became chancellor. Only step by step did the Nazis dismantle democratic freedoms and turn the country into a complete dictatorship.
The political majority could have united to stop Hitler from becoming a dictator. But they did not unite. They fought each other over their differences. Some figured that they would take over after the Nazis were discredited and defeated. Read More
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Thomas Sowell: Is Cruz Hurting the Cause He Stands For?
"Freshman Senator Ted Cruz says many things that need to be said and says them well. Moreover, some of these things are what many, if not most, Americans believe wholeheartedly. Yet we need to remember that the same was true of another freshman Senator, just a relatively few years ago, who parlayed his ability to say things that resonated with the voters into two terms in the White House."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
108 comments:
Yes. Keep up the good work.
Cruz represents people @ARM doesn't like. That's for sure. Whether this means Cruz and his crew can't win... well, that's what's called "concern trolling."
The "Well, it's better if you put up a non-conservative candidate," thing hasn't been working for Republicans.
What works for the Republican Party is putting up a good, truly conservative candidate... like Reagan. The liberal wing of the party, dominated by Eastern aristocrats, always fights that.
And, you can expect plenty of Democratic concern trolls to suggest that the Republicans nominate a liberal they like. In this case, ARM has christened himself and those who he likes as "reasonable."
You might want to consider their motives.
Odd article for Sowell, and not one of his better one.
He usually writes about specific economic issues, and I find him a lot more interesting when he does that.
This is one of those "pundits yakking with the pundits" things that have become so popular on the internet and cable TV. Not much substance.
I usually just glide past the pundit kerfluffles. Today, I'm a little lazy about getting down to work in the studio.
I have to call "Godwin" on Sowell. The situations he describes are not analogous in my opinion. Yes, some of us can become hyperbolic in our concerns about the future of this country, and I do on occasion, but current political reality in the US is far from the political reality of Germany in 1932. The stakes are just not that high, as yet. And perhaps I just delude myself into believing that, as I do struggle to remain optimistic about the future.
Though, I do too fear that Cruz is looking out for Cruz, which is a normal human attribute. But as long as he holds true to the precepts and principals he appears to hold dear, as do I, then I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. As is mentioned, if no one says, or brings to the publics attention, what Cruz says, then who will speak to the issues that confront us.
Since the anti-Cruz Republicans are just somewhat-more fiscally responsible Democrats, why should I care if Cruz undermines them?
It's been decades, and with each iteration, the GOP says they'll really really really get onto the small government thing for realz this time for sure.
Psych!
Tea Party = Nazis?
As Xray says, it's just not similar.
There is no racism, no deep seated anger at neighboring nations, nor are our problems rooted in lost wars, international theft and hatred. We simply have too big a government that is unsupportable, and is draining us of our vitality and prosperity. It's not complicated, or even that controversial, when people are being honest and not wearing their team jersey.
We either fight for smaller government and succeed or nothing else matters. Whatever gets us there, is the smart approach. Running unconservative candidates is all we have tried for a long time, and even when we win, it's failure at making progress that will stop us from digging this hole deeper.
I dont quite follow what Sowell is getting at.
The real danger of the Nazi type horror reappearing is if we don't start fixing our mistakes. That disaster was driven by the anger of people in poverty in a nation having it's vitality suppressed and stolen. That sparks the hatred, the scapegoating, the defensiveness, and the desperation that makes people do horrible things, because in the end we would rather fight and die than not be free. We need to give our people peaceful political alternatives now, because the theft will eventually not be tolerated.
The whole argument rests on a premise that can't be proven... which is that the other political parties in Germany *would have* opposed Hitler had they not been fighting. Not "could have" opposed Hitler, but *would have* done so.
In truth, they were fighting because things other than Hitler were more important to them. I say this with confidence because it's a tautology. Had they not been fighting, Hitler would still not have been important to them.
In the case of Cruz and others who are supposed to get in line... well, what possible reason could any thinking person have to believe that the Republicans are even slightly interested in doing what needs to be done, or, if they regain the Senate, will do anything other than the same as usual?
One guy making noise isn't a *reason*, it's an excuse.
I thnk someone in the GOP, afraid of Cruz, is trying to knock hiim down a notch. Asked Sowell to do some of their dirty work for them. Bastards.
You really have to give up on the idea that the necessary change is gonna be widely popular. Once it's widely popular it will be because we have already dug ourselves too deep, and everyone, even the dense lefties, finally see the lesson of 100 years of failed experiments around the world. The change will be a narrow win, followed by gradual improvements and constant fighting by some to go back to the mistakes. We have to start fixing it before it collapses, and that means it will be less popular politically.
Synova: "One guy making noise isn't a *reason*, it's an excuse."
Exactly!
They spend more time attacking him than explaining how they will make changes. All I'm hearing is "protect the party" Fuck the party, I'm a lifelong Democrat, and most people who's votes you need are not Republicans or people who give a shit about the party.
I'm bored with the argument that Cruz is looking out for himself from politicians and pundits that have looked after themselves for decades now. Cruz is hurting the Republican Party. They hurt themselves long ago. Cruz is the result of their long damaged brand continuing to support those that damaged it.
There is nothing the MSM loves more than chronicaling a GOP intraparty fight. Their only break from pushing Obamas agenda.
Used to be some long spaces between elections, back before the advent of the internet and cable TV.
Politics would be mostly forgotten during those interludes. That was a good thing.
I've really tired of the daily crisis, the daily outrage, the daily something we must do or the world is coming to an end.
Writers need to keep the income coming in by cranking stuff out. Writers need crises and outrage. Fortunately for them, something can always be interpreted as a crisis or an outrage.
I'm a retired Old Dawgz. All that stuff makes me want to take a nap.
Reagan was not embraced at first by the stablishment.
So this column is just another argument for allowing the status quo to exist in perpetuity. Yeah, that's a convincing plan for change.
That said, why would electing an inexperienced Senator with no real accomplishments to his name work any better this time than the last?
The attacks on Cruz and the Tea Party are really getting desperate. Hitler? Seriously?
Everybody knows that Ted Cruz does not like to paint. Jeeez.
I personally prefer someone like Scott Walker who has a proven record of achievement. We don't need a Senator who is long on rhetoric and short on accomplishment.
Thomas Sowell for all his brilliance is an old man. He analyzes things from a perspective of balance, reasonableness, level-headedness, weighing of options, limited resources, wisdom. His analysis of the two criminal enterprises Rep and Dem, from a pov of Rep as good criminal enterprise always leaves out the characterization of Dem criminal enterprise as catchbasin for all that is fierce, hung up on one specific issue, psychologically damaged, freakishly controlling, incredibly insecure, hostile, tireless, imaginative bu innumerate, careless with other's money, young and old and in between, with limitless energy.
He is uncomfortable with tea party types. He squirms. He needs a nap.
Sowell is getting up in years.
Senator Ted Cruz has not yet reached the point where he can make policy, rather than just make political trouble. But there are already disquieting signs that he is looking out for Ted Cruz — even if that sets back the causes he claims to be serving.
What are those signs? Where is Cruz' Mein Kampf?
And who will play Paul von Hindenburg?
I'm not willing to throw Thomas Sowell under the bus, but I am willing to challenge his infallbility.
The GOP has already weakened itself by being the ankle grabbing party it has become. Ted Cruz didn't do that, he simply has been highlighting the fecklessness of the party he is in.
Did anyone actually read the Sowell article? He doesn't equate Cruz with Hitler or the Tea Party with the Nazi Party. If anything, he points to similarities between Obama and Hitler, Obamacare and Nazi policy. Read Sowell's article again and try reading for comprehension.
Also, Xray, as do many people nowadays, seems to misunderstand Godwin's Law.
I thought the article read like a paragraph or two were missing.
What, exactly, is Cruz doing to ruin the Reps' chances in the next election?
Didn't read it, can't really read, not well educated. I'm lazy, and just want left alone.
I assumed it was the argument I've already heard from the left, and some on the right, so I didn't attack Sowell at all, just the argument. I know, that's irresponsible. I should be attacking someone, if I'm gonna bother commenting.
Hey where is that irrelevant old fart, Shouting Thomas. Isn't he a racist or something like the rest of yous?
Chip's right. It was badly edited and somewhat unclear. Sowell's a much better writer than that.
I gather he was trying to say that we need to be unified against the Democrats, or we'll end up in totalitarianism.
But I disagree. The GOP has no intention of undoing anything, just offering more of the same big state approach.
The problem with the 'smaller government' mantra is that it does not provide the less-informed voter with any benefit. Smaller is hardly ever better.
Smaller needs to evolve to something else. "Efficient" government is an oxymoron, and a word that often triggers a bullshit response in most people.
As a creative director, I lament the spectacular lameness of the Republican Party's branding and marketing.
I'd love to devise and create a program/workshop specifically for high-level Republican leadership to tackle such problems from my perspective. Not only to help them out, but to make some cash for me as well.
@ChipS I skiped a few
How about: This government needs an enema!
Lem, I read the original and still can't find any specifics.
I do know that Cruz caught a lot of flak for "shutting down the government" to delay implementation of Obamacare. Since the administration subsequently has delayed implementation of Obamacare, I think a fair assessment of the situation is that it was the president who "shut down the government" solely for the sake of political appearances.
I don't know what other complaints there are about Cruz, and Sowell shouldn't presume that everyone reading his column knows every little detail about whatever he has in mind.
" Smaller is hardly ever better."
I see that as completely backwards, and most people do understand that smaller is better in most things. Larger can be cheaper in the production of goods, but that's about it. The government doesn't produce goods. Most people prefer services from smaller entities or at least large ones that find a way to seem intimate and small. It's not that smaller is better, but that at a certain point largeness becomes unwieldy and corrupt with it's own internal petty politics overtaking the mission, and the federal government is the largest organization on earth. It would work better at about half it's current size, and how about that price tag, which you have to pay, want it or not.
The piece assumes the Whigs are winning or, at least, putting up a good fight, which doesn't seem to be the case.
My analogy would be to an upstart political party of the 1850s.
They were called Republicans.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
Yes. Keep up the good work.
From someone cheering on what Chuckie Schumer calls "our Republicans".
I think Walker is keeping his powder dry.
If Cuomo beat out Hillary, and Walker got the nod, I don't know that Walker could win.
I see that as completely backwards, and most people do understand that smaller is better in most things. Larger can be cheaper in the production of goods, but that's about it. The government doesn't produce goods. Most people prefer services from smaller entities or at least large ones that find a way to seem intimate and small. It's not that smaller is better, but that at a certain point largeness becomes unwieldy and corrupt with it's own internal petty politics overtaking the mission, and the federal government is the largest organization on earth. It would work better at about half it's current size, and how about that price tag, which you have to pay, want it or not.
Keep in mind you are not talking to yourself, but someone who thinks, at their basest -- smaller government = less help.
"Read Sowell's article again and try reading for comprehension."
Thanks, but I got it the first time.
The Germans could have used a Cruz. Tactically the closest they had was this guy but when it came time to vote on the Enabling Act the existing party structures supported the H man and the rest is history.
There's a lesson there for Boehner, McConnell and Sowell.
And to add - as much as the 47% concept is true -- you're going to inevitably have to appeal to some of those voters as I don't believe our school systems are churning out the smart kind.
It's hard to win "customers" by telling them "I'm going to do less for you."
The story has to be all about the benefits of less government and showcase those in a way that illustrates how that impact people's lives.
Rehearsal postponed three nights in a row because of weather.
All I got is you old farts.
"It's hard to win "customers" by telling them "I'm going to do less for you." "
Well then we're screwed because people are just fucking stupid.
And then we gots Detroit, and the 47% wail and gnash their teeth.
Well then we're screwed because people are just fucking stupid.
And then we gots Detroit, and the 47% wail and gnash their teeth.
No, you just need to convince them that less is actually more. It's a tough task, but not impossible. The upside is as things get worse or stagnate economically, the younger generations will instinctively become more wary of government largesse.
The main problem is the battle between emotion and logic.
Republicans (or conservatives) need to present their cases with more emotion without abandoning their logic.
Conservatives also need to invest more of themselves and their money into building media -- where the narratives are built.
"It's hard to win "customers" by telling them "I'm going to do less for you."
The people who genuinely consider government their providers do not vote much, and that's the only power they have. For everyone else, cost/benefit matters. Even leftists who think the government should take care of everyone wants it done efficiently and without corruption and waste. They don't want the undeserving to get the stuff either. The message that's easy to demonstrate and does resonate with a majority is that the government wastes a lot of our resources, and it does it by taking those resources away from us first, so that we can't do as much for own families and close communities. They take money that you could give to your local charity or fund your kids education, and they give it to Solyndra investors and bankers to buy new Porches. I never hear that argument, and I'd like to hear the debate over it.
The people who genuinely consider government their providers do not vote much, and that's the only power they have. For everyone else, cost/benefit matters.
You're arguing with the wrong person. I agree with you, but a big part of my job is understanding human nature. It's not about government 'providing' for them, it's more about 'who will clear my roads?" "who will get my trash."
Get out of your own bubble for a second. Think about the people who vote for "the candidate fighting for the little guy." What does that even mean? What is fighting for the little guy? It's usually the guy who lost his job because the big bad company moved overseas. It's the single mom. It's all the typical bullshit that you and I know isn't true but has become so through a relentless media synergy.
My upper-middle class neighbors where the wife stays home and raises the kids and makes jewelry but votes for the Democrat because "she cares." It's all bullshit, but there's more of them out there right now than you.
I'm not fighting the battle of reality, but the battle of perception.
The battle of reality is too time-consuming for most voters. They are too busy (to their credit) running businesses, working, raising kids, going to soccer games, getting groceries, watching TV, reading, and the like to get really involved in the minutia of the battle of reality. Perception is their shortcut for all of it.
And Republicans (almost) always lose the perception game. Even when they shouldn't.
If Cuomo I think it will be relatively easy for the Republican candidate to win if he has balls. Andy Cuomo has been involved in some of the dirtiest politics in New York State history. The Ed Koch story alone should be enough to shake up the gays a little.
The little publicized involvement of his mother's family with the Mafia should be fully explored. Charles Raffa was beaten almost to death by his Mafia co-conspirators in a supermarket he was supposed to torch for the insurance money. Any in depth examination of Mario Cuomo's law practice will also see him standing proxy for the Mob much like Geraldine Farraro's husband who practiced at the same time in the same place. There are reasons why Mario never ran for President and it should be relatively easy to stick them to his son.
If the Republican candidate will play hardball and not be a Jonathan Martin type pussy.
Like many political ideas, this one is not new. It represents a political strategy that was tried long ago — and failed long ago.
... and, damnit, XRay called Godwin first.
You know, there's a more obvious parallel from right here in American history -- Goldwater and Reagan, who both undermined their party's chances in the short term ('64 and '76) in the hopes of reforming it, or at least controlling it, in the long run.
Now, in my opinion they failed, but the idea itself isn't crazy.
Chris Christie is dirty but Andy Cuomo and his whole family is filthy.
It will be up to the Conservative Press to dig it up as the liberal mainstream media lapdogs will never publicize it.
You guys are missing the point re: Hitler &the Nazis. Sowell's point there is that Germany's more reasonable, better choices ccould have stopped Hitler at the ballot box, save for their bickering and personal ambitions. Obama = Hitler in this construction.
The tactic of people like MSNBC is to tar Ted Cruz with the opinions of his father who is a real anti-communist firebrand. The tactic of the Republicans should be to tar Hillary with the sexual crimes of her husband and Cuomo with the actual unexamined crimes of his father and grandfather. There is not just smoke there. There is a raging inferno.
I'm not arguing with you EDM, I'm answering the how? question. Repubs need to make the arguments that are both real and everyone can appreciate. The problem with government and reason it so large and expensive is that it does a lot of things that most people don't want it to. Sure there is a constituency for every expenditure, but if Repubs can argue against the ones that are both wasting our money, and that most people find offensive or unworthy of tax money, they can win. The 47% argument was true, and it is the problem, but the point is that not all the 47% is inappropriate, but much of it is and a majority would agree it need reigned in. The 47% thing was just imprecise, and an easy target.
Most of my friends are deep lefties, but I can always get them to agree about this stuff, especially when you point out that the truly needy are the ones getting hurt by waste.
There is a problem in that many of them would vote for the most unpleasant of Democrats over the most competent and even moderate Republican. When I ask what they found wrong with Romney, it's all superficial and mostly inaccurate, with a healthy dose of bigotry. These people can't be reached, but the ones who can are looking for competence and a plan.
It's going to be hard to sell the Republican message when that message is, "If you're not well off, then Fuck you." And right now, that's all you guys have. No one not in the uppermost quintile of income has any reason to vote for a Republican.
I also understand that Andy likes to dress up in fishnet stockings, big black bloomers and a top hat just like Marlene Dietrich.
That is why his Kennedy wife left him for a sweater over the shoulder wearing polo playing Mo.
Even a Kennedy thought that was too kinky.
The Republicans can't talk about the economy and the future of our country in intelligent terms. That is what Romney did and he lost. They need to appeal emotionally and visceral to the Honey Boo Boo/Duck Dynasty/Ellen DeGeneres crowd to pick up the votes to add to the base.
They need to go on the New Tonight Show and any other venue like "The View" or whatever. The candidate has to have a good story that appeals to chuckle heads.
Competence does not win elections when measured against bullshit entertainment values.
"You guys are missing the point re: Hitler &the Nazis. Sowell's point there is that Germany's more reasonable, better choices ccould have stopped Hitler at the ballot box, save for their bickering and personal ambitions."
I don't think that I missed that at all. It's just that he wasn't saying that they *could* have stopped Hitler... because obviously they could have done... but would they have done? There is no reason whatsoever to think that anyone would have, even if they could have.
And really... if what you're valuing is non-confrontation, the fact that everyone is getting along might make it even *less* likely, rather than more likely, that any of them would have taken the treat seriously.
Honest... what happens when a Republican takes the threat seriously? Why, we can look at Cruz and have our answer.
In the end, a conservative government takes better care of it's people, both rich and poor, through opportunity, freedom and fairness. You have to explain how that works.
If you think we are going in the right direction now, then you vote Democrat. I can live with the outcome of that vote either way as long as we have that debate first. If our people are too stupid, shortsighted or selfish to get it, then so be it. Other places on the globe are now passing us by in opportunity and economic freedom, so people with energy and drive will have places to go, if this place festers and declines.
How come Sowell turns a blind eye to the active undermining of Cruz by the GOP Establishment at the very moment he was trying to shut the government down over A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE. A principle all Republicans supposedly support or claim to support. It was the classic KNIFE IN THE BACK, the same that brought Schicklgruber to power!
Charles Raffa was beaten almost to death by his Mafia co-conspirators in a supermarket...
A Gristedes, I'll bet!
Knife In The Back should be Stab In The Back.
From a much longer discussion of "Godwins Law" at Wikipedia.
"Godwin has stated that he introduced Godwin's law in 1990 as an experiment in memetics.[2]
Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust", Godwin has written."
Bolding mine.
So, you might think that someone with excellent reading comprehension might have noticed my use of the term "hyperbolic" in my comment. And thusly why I actually called "Godwin".
And yes, I did read the article, and also agree with many of the conclusions above about a certain lack of rigor, or focus, or even much of a point in this particular piece of Sowell's work.
Didn't read it, can't really read, I'm not well educated. I'm lazy, and just want [to be] left alone.
I think it's of the highest importance that bagoh go up on his roof and start mooning both the incoming and outgoing flights to get his morale back up!
First comment is priceless.
Yes, keep up the good work, inconvenient and unreasonable schismatic! My leadership is immune to shaming because their sheep are even more stupid and greedy than they are but yours are possibly not and I celebrate that vulnerability.
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY.
Bonus: blithely oblivious to the Nazi reference OR takes it as a compliment?
YOUR CALL.
If only we were all so reasonable, what a reasonable world it would be.
You guys are missing the point re: Hitler &the Nazis. Sowell's point there is that Germany's more reasonable, better choices ccould have stopped Hitler at the ballot box, save for their bickering and personal ambitions. Obama = Hitler in this construction.
Actually, Hillary = Hitler in their construction. Not that that makes the argument any less retarded.
ARM launches his shit bombs from on high...he thinks. But they're always shit. That's the tell.
The Republicans can't talk about the economy and the future of our country in intelligent terms. That is what Romney did and he lost.
Romney did nothing of the kind. He promised to raise defense spending, cut taxes, refrain from cutting Social Security and Medicare... and balance the budget. Which makes him an idiot, a liar, or both, as doing what he described is mathematically impossible.
Sure, he was correct that just under half the country pays no income tax, but so what? That certainly contributes to our *political* problems, but it isn't the cause of our economic problems. It isn't the idle poor who are hoovering up all our tax dollars -- it is the elderly, the military, and government employees.
"I think it's of the highest importance that bagoh go up on his roof and start mooning both the incoming and outgoing flights to get his morale back up!"
Done. I do feel better. Thanks.
Revenant said...
He promised to raise defense spending, cut taxes, refrain from cutting Social Security and Medicare... and balance the budget. Which makes him an idiot, a liar, or both, as doing what he described is mathematically impossible.
The Dems, who are almost as craven, at least promise to cut the military and raise taxes and they actually did cut Medicare.
Romney talked about the takers and the builders and for that he was under attack. Obama won because he was the imaginary girlfriend of women who thought there vagina was under attack or something.
The answer for the Republicans is simply to say that the Democrats destroyed your health insurance. They lied about it and you are losing your insurance or your premiums are doubling and tripling and your deductible will be sky high. People know this is true because it is actually happening to them in the real world. Not the bullshit spin world the Obama and the lapdog live.
If Obamacare is this great thing that they claim they will win easily. If not they get slaughted.
As long as we muddy up the Democrat as much as they are going to muddy up the Republican nominee.
Hoist the black flag and take no prisoners.
Hey Revenant, are those the same "idle poor" that have laid waste our once great cities?
Errol Flynn: Avast me hearties, hoist the black flag, grapple yon Spanish galleon and take 'er down. Are ye with me lads?
Robert Newton: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrgggghh.........
An awful column by the usually reliable Sowell. Starts with the absurd assumption that Cruz is hurting the Republican party, then weakly uses the analogy of Obama = Hitler, Republicans = anti-Nazis' in 1932.
Cruz isn't hurting the Republicans - the RINO's are. And the same old dead-head Establishment types pushing Amnesty and refusing to attack Obama on anything.
The Establishment "Logic" is always hard to follow. First its don't fight over the debt ceiling, let Obama self-destruct with the Obama Care debacle. Then 2 months later, its "Lets help Obama out by pushing Amnesty" WTF!
And of course, instead of doing something to STOP Obamacare, they fuzz up the issue by talking about Republican alternatives or how they are going to fix it.
Stuck on stupid.
Trooper and I agree to an extent.
Make your pitch (don't change your principles) but make it compelling and media-friendly.
Boehner has press conferences right after this or that, and wants to speak to specifics. He's a media dumbass. He (and the R's) need to frame everything with The Big Why. They don't do that consistently at all.
The Dems, who are almost as craven, at least promise to cut the military and raise taxes and they actually did cut Medicare.
The Medicare cuts haven't actually been allowed to take effect yet, though. And the military cuts haven't happened either -- in fact, the small military cuts that *had* happened (the "sequester") were undone as part of the last budget deal.
So Cuomo and Ray Handley have the same designer.
Romney talked about the takers and the builders and for that he was under attack.
He wasn't running for TV Pundit, he was running for President.
I don't give a rat's ass if the President bitches about "takers" or not. I care about whether he plans to reduce the size and scope of government. Romney's stated plans would have increased both the deficit and the size of government, so fuck him and fuck his "makes vs takers" bullshit. The US government is the biggest "taker" in the history of the planet.
...women who thought there vaginas were under attack...
A Woman Apart: Those run of the mill herd type women claim their vaginas can be tamed, but that there vagina of mine has a will of its own.
Cruz isn't hurting the Republicans - the RINO's are.
I'll give you a pass on using the term "RINO" to describe "the people who've run the Republican Party for the last 25 years".
You're still setting up a false dichotomy, though. Just because the establishment sucks doesn't automatically mean that Cruz will turn out to be a net benefit. There is reason to think he's putting his own political interests ahead of the principles he claims to hold.
Hurting a party in the short term to improve it in the long term is good. Hurting a party in the short term because it increases your chances of becoming President, not so much. Which category Cruz falls into is unclear.
If the Republicans nominate Jeb Bush or Chris Christie or another Rhino favorite then they will lose. Lose big time.
We need fresh blood and new faces with actual conservative bona fides that will excite the base and get them out to vote. If the base turns away from the nominee then they will never pick up enough from the low information voters to beat any plausible Democrat.
Plus we must at all costs demonize the Democratic nominee as was done to Romney with lies and calumny of the most disgusting types available.
Don't play fair. Play to win.
Don't be Jonathan Martin.
Be Conrad Dobler.
Don't be Ralph Sampson.
Be Ricky Mahorn.
Above all don't be Mel Ott.
Above all don't be Mel Ott.
Be Duane Kuiper!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"I also understand that Andy likes to dress up in fishnet stockings, big black bloomers and a top hat just like Marlene Dietrich."
Sounds like a case for grizzled reporter Yorker Troop. I smell a Pulitzer.
I think it smells more like a mackerel.
I smell a Pulitzer.
Oh, that's just Roxanne.
But she cleans up pretty good.
Sowell has now published Cruz Control? Part II.
He gives a couple of specifics re his criticism of Cruz, and also takes on the inadequacies of Boehner and the Republican establishment.
Part II presents a much more coherent argument than part I.
Is that the one with Hyman Roth?
That was definitely way better.
Don't be Mike Kekich, be Fritz Peterson.
Don't be Joe LaHoud, be Pete LaCock.
Don't be Kristen.
Be Stassi.
Don't be Kenya
Be Nene.
Don't be Laura.
Be Nellie.
Whoa Nellie!!!!!!!!
Didn't want it to be all sports metaphors so I threw in some......for the ladies!
(That guy has a website now but he is only into racism...he gave up on the ladies)
Don't be Charlie Brown
Be Lucy
Trooper, Too obscure.
Fritz the Cat went into the Stassi office. "Anybody seen Hyman Roth, my traveling companion?" "Nein, we know nuzzing, nene nellie nuzzin g." That was just after the war and the Germans were towing the line. Nowadays it would be "Yah, ve nabbed the Zionist Pig and turned him over to Susan Powers, no worse fate than that for a Yid even under Shicklgruber."
What you guys don't watch the Real Housewives?
Bunch of pussies.
And we can say "no" to our spouses.
Pogo, does she have to wear that dress tonight?
Now you have penises?
Is it a strap on or did you grow it?
I hear that 3d copier is the latest thing.
A Freudian typo!!
Post a Comment