Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 08, 2016, 01:08:57 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
92592 Posts in 2299 Topics by 1080 Members
Latest Member: Tedbo
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Sen.Ted Cruz
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Print
Author Topic: Sen.Ted Cruz  (Read 26835 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #250 on: January 13, 2016, 01:47:22 PM »

Kasich is an interesting choice for Cruz.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #251 on: January 13, 2016, 02:23:20 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TMOtgQDGiM
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #252 on: January 14, 2016, 03:41:07 AM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us/politics/ted-cruz-starts-to-crack-gop-establishments-wall-of-opposition.html?ribbon-ad-idx=3&rref=politics&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&pgtype=article
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #253 on: January 14, 2016, 09:24:43 AM »

http://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1129&context=scholar
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #254 on: January 14, 2016, 09:26:12 AM »

Second post
http://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1129&context=scholar
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4970


« Reply #255 on: January 14, 2016, 10:47:43 AM »

I cannot agree with the proposal that anyone who is a citizen for 14 years and renounces any previous sovereign citizenship or loyalty is eligible.

The conclusion that this discriminates the rights of a foreign born citizen of their rights  is a big stretch.

Cited as justification is the smaller world we live in with migration being common etc.

This is exactly the reason we cannot allow someone to come here from somewhere else and after 14 years trust them to "renounce" previous allegiance and thus be able to be President.

I am not clear.  Examples given include citizens who live abroad and have a baby.   Levin keeps citing this with the further extreme of the citizen being military personnel,   Well what if that person goes to another country and becomes a citizen of that country?  Well if they can keep dual citizenship that may be ok.  But what if he/she doesn't?

From the opposite point of view what if a citizen from another country is here on business, or pleasure and happens to give birth here.  Is that not ridiculous that that person's baby is automatically a citizen?

The logic can be applied to someone here illegally.  There child can become President.  Is that not absurd?

Perhaps the citizenship issue should be better decided upon.  However we know full well the leftist justices will support interpretations along party lines.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #256 on: January 16, 2016, 02:59:04 PM »

http://theresurgent.com/ted-cruz-wins-prominent-new-york-city-straw-poll-after-insulting-new-york-values/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #257 on: January 16, 2016, 09:34:41 PM »

second post

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/19/gov-cuomo-pro-life-conservatives-have-no-place-new/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #258 on: January 16, 2016, 09:44:54 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/tedcruzpage/videos/10153827788602464/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #259 on: January 16, 2016, 10:47:35 PM »

Fourth post

Carville on Cruz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQA4ww_AnQw

Cruz vs. Van Jones
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b74WUvZHo8s

Cruz to Trayvon's mother:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQAr47xF21k

Cruz on Israel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgU4PIErJ4M
Cruz begins at 2:40

Cruz on Jay Leno in 2013-- Ted engaging with mass culture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDTD86kssY8
« Last Edit: January 16, 2016, 11:38:05 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4970


« Reply #260 on: January 17, 2016, 07:30:33 AM »

Crafty,

Very impressive indeed.

Some of the videos are over 2 yrs old though.

The Carville one is amazing but I don't trust Carville's motives.

Cruz is the one for me.  Trump probably second and Rubio third for me.

I am definitely one of the Jews for Cruz!  smiley
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #261 on: January 17, 2016, 09:35:11 AM »

I deliberately chose some older ones so we could get more of a feel for him before he began running for the presidency.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4970


« Reply #262 on: January 21, 2016, 08:37:37 PM »

Is the establishment fix in for Trump now?

Mark Levin rightly questions the sudden coordinated attacks on Cruz by fellow Republicans including many time loser Dole and a warming to Trump.  Did Trump make a deal with the establishment?

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7495


« Reply #263 on: January 24, 2016, 06:00:45 PM »

I like Cruz but I don't think his appeal is large enough to win.  His rival Trump puts it in stronger terms than that.

One hit against him is that of the other 99 Senators and the other 53 Republican Senators, none of his colleagues have endorsed him.  Further, none of the 32 Republican Governors have endorsed Cruz at this point.

Confucious say (okay, Doug says):  A leader without followers is not a leader.

(Meanwhile Rubio has endorsements from Darrel Issa, Trey Gowdy, Kristi Noem, Mia Love, Cory Gardner, Mike Pompeo and Iowa Senator Joni Ernst.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/#endorsements

Correction.  Joni Ernst appearing with Rubio today, not endorsing. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/joni-ernst-to-campaign-with-marco-rubio-on-monday/article/2581323
« Last Edit: January 25, 2016, 07:37:30 AM by DougMacG » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13266


« Reply #264 on: January 24, 2016, 06:18:46 PM »

I like Cruz but I don't think his appeal is large enough to win.  His rival Trump puts it in stronger terms than that.

One hit against him is that of the other 99 Senators and the other 53 Republican Senators, none of his colleagues have endorsed him.  Further, none of the 32 Republican Governors have endorsed Cruz at this point.

Confucious say (okay, Doug says):  A leader without followers is not a leader.

(Meanwhile Rubio has endorsements from Darrel Issa, Trey Gowdy, Kristi Noem, Mia Love, Cory Gardner, Mike Pompeo and Iowa Senator Joni Ernst.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/#endorsements

Someone who isn't part of the DC machine? That's an endorsement to me.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #265 on: January 25, 2016, 11:26:23 AM »

IMHO a fundamental cause at the root of several of our biggest and seemingly most intractable problems is that the House of Reps has lost its will to use the power of the purse. 

Who has proven himself to be the exception on this and willing to stand alone if need be? 

Sen. Ted Cruz

(Sen. Mike Lee, Sen. Rand Paul too)
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #266 on: January 25, 2016, 01:45:41 PM »

Ted Cruz Likes Being Hated
The Texas senator is running against Republicans as much as Democrats, and he claims Reagan was more loathed in 1980 than he is now.
By Joseph Rago
Jan. 22, 2016 5:41 p.m. ET
920 COMMENTS

Exeter, N.H.

Ted Cruz isn’t running against Marco Rubio or Donald J. Trump or even Hillary Clinton, not really. His real opponent is the Republican establishment, or the permanent syndicate of politicians, lobbyists, donors, business interests and insiders that he calls “the Washington cartel.” Such a thing must exist, because everybody says it does—though this week how much power the establishment possesses became the dominant ontological question of the primaries in both parties.

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton traded epithets about who qualified for membership. (They’re both right.) Meanwhile, the Republican establishmentarians can’t protect a speaker of the House or prevent the two candidates they abhor the most from surging to the top of the GOP field.


The freshman Texas senator, to adapt FDR’s response to charges of being a class turncoat, welcomes their hatred—if that word is sufficiently forceful, which it isn’t. “You know, when we launched this campaign, the New York Times promptly opined, ‘Cruz cannot win, because the Washington elites despise him.’ I kinda thought that was the whole point of the campaign,” Mr. Cruz tells the audience in well-heeled Exeter, some of whom look like Times readers.

He’s finishing the last leg of the weeklong “Cruzin’ to Victory” bus tour that has taken him around New Hampshire, including north of the White Mountains. Watching Mr. Cruz in a forum where he is trying to be liked rather than detested can be disorienting. He usually begins by explaining what he intends to do on his first day in office and “in the days that follow,” and his talks are brightened by geniality, personability and corny humor that are rarely in evidence in the Senate cloak room.

“Look, would it kill Republicans to crack a joke? Actually, some of them I think it might,” he says. “You know, have a little fun, for Pete’s sake.”


“In the days that follow,” Mr. Cruz continues, “we’ll take on the EPA and the CFPB and the alphabet soup of federal agencies that have descended like locusts on small businesses, killing jobs all across this country. You know, a few years back I was in West Texas. And I asked folks out there, I said, ‘What’s the difference between regulators and locusts?’ Said, well, ‘The thing is, you can’t use pesticides on regulators.’ This old West Texas farmer leaned back, said, ‘Wanna bet?’ ” He affects an adenoidal twang.

The joke gets a laugh, and it is funny, sort of, as long as the listener shares the underlying political assumptions. Also, as long as the listener is hearing it for the first time.

Mr. Cruz rolled out the same wisecrack—word for word, beat for beat, gesture for gesture—the night before at a barn rally in Rye, as he would later that evening at a town hall in Hollis, and the next day at a pizza parlor in Manchester.

“Scripture tells us, there’s nothing new under the sun” Mr. Cruz likes to say, which also applies to his campaign style. Stump speeches aren’t meant for binge eating, and all politicians have their set pieces that each crowd of voters is hearing fresh. What’s remarkable about Mr. Cruz’s discipline is that he repeats the same sentences and fully formed paragraphs.

Check the tapes, and he promises to “finally, finally, finally” secure the borders—three finallys every time. He’ll “abolish” the Internal Revenue Service, “rip to shreds this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal,” repeal “every word” of ObamaCare, adopt a “simple flat tax,” halt President Obama’s “illegal executive amnesty.” The overall effect of a Cruz event is of a slick but well-rehearsed and workmanlike broadcaster, Jay Leno maybe.
***

Mr. Cruz’s campaign declined an interview request, citing his congested schedule, and no doubt it was. Still, full disclosure, the senator seems to view the Journal editorial page as the house organ for the establishment. “Of all the friendly media outlets for GOP leadership, none is more potent,” Mr. Cruz writes in the first chapter—titled “Mendacity”—of his 2015 memoir, which recounts “the weapons used against me—mischaracterizations of my motivations, attacks in the press, efforts at ostracism.”

As Mr. Cruz emphatically puts it in Rye, Exeter, Hollis and Manchester: “If you think Washington is fundamentally broken, that there is a bipartisan corruption of career politicians in both parties that get in bed with the lobbyists and special interests and grow and grow and grow government, and we need to take power out of Washington, and back to ‘We the People,’ that is what this campaign is all about.”

Mr. Cruz’s project for 2016 is predicated on a severe claim about the condition of American democracy. Captured by the Washington cartel, the Republican Party is not merely feckless, but, worse, corrupt, and it has become detached from the public to which it is supposed to be accountable.

“Our representatives aren’t representing us. They’re representing large corporations and lobbyists rather than the American people,” Mr. Cruz declared at the Heritage Foundation last June. The “Republican leadership,” he said in a Senate floor speech in September, “will not fight for a single priority we promised the voters we would fight for when we were campaigning less than a year ago.”

He didn’t get the opportunity to finish the thought. When Mr. Cruz’s allotted time expired, not a single colleague supported the procedural motion to extend the hour as a courtesy. “Both the Democratic and Republican leadership are objecting to the American people speaking further,” he concluded.

Mr. Cruz’s critics on Capitol Hill believe he converts differences over strategy into crucibles of purity and principles, and then goes on to assail his opponents as dishonest, illegitimate or motivated by bad faith. Thus he says GOP leaders opposed the 2013 ObamaCare shutdown because they were closet supporters of the entitlement, not because they thought the tactic was futile and would mislead voters about what was politically possible.

In a word, they think he is a supremely self-absorbed show pony. Perhaps relevant: The Ted Cruz 2016 pocket Constitution that his volunteers distribute features a Ted Cruz introduction and a Ted Cruz chrestomathy before the document’s text.

Whatever Mr. Cruz’s motives, his Senate capers seem to be an asset. “In this Republican primary, every Republican says they will take on Washington,” he observes. “Have you noticed that, by the way, in Republican primary, everyone says they’re a conservative? You know, on that debate stage you don’t have a single person stand up there and say, ‘I’m a squishy establishment moderate. I stand for nothing.’ They don’t say that.” (Except for John Kasich.)

“Well, the natural follow-up question is, ‘OK, when have you stood up to Washington?’ Who has taken on Washington, not just Democrats but leaders in our own party?” Mr. Cruz continues. “Because if we’re going to stop the cronyism, the corporate welfare, you’ve got to be willing to stand up to the lobbyists, and stand up to the Washington cartel. And I would suggest, in that regard, my record is materially different from anyone else on that stage.”

One irony is that notwithstanding his reputation, Mr. Cruz tends to nurture a careful strategic indefiniteness about his positions. Last April he published an op-ed in this newspaper with now-Speaker Paul Ryan endorsing fast-track trade legislation, only to turn against the bill for procedural reasons—and after Mr. Trump did. He led the opposition to Mr. Obama’s drone program and Syrian bombing plan three years ago; now he says he’ll make the sand glow to defeat Islamic State.

Mr. Cruz has also executed subtle shifts on immigration and the best approach to oppose gun control, while maintaining, with a lawyer’s exactitude, that he was consistent all along. Like most politicians, he has a talent for reinvention: He’s a purist, in other words, who doesn’t always think, talk or behave like a purist.

Mr. Cruz is fond of drawing historical analogies and offering “a bit of history the media will never tell you,” often having to do with Ronald Reagan. But he can be a revisionist historian.

“Republican leadership loathed Ronald Reagan,” Mr. Cruz explained in Hollis. “They hated him with the heat of a thousand white-hot suns. You think they dislike me. It wasn’t nothin’ compared to how they felt about Ronald Reagan. Now: ’77, ’78, ’79, Reagan didn’t fly out to D.C. and sit down with the old bulls and say, ‘Come on guys, we got to stand for something.’ He knew that was hopeless. They weren’t listening. . . . Instead, he built a grass-roots movement. That tidal wave came in and it changed Washington.”

Well, that was true before the 1976 GOP convention, when Reagan attempted to unhorse a sitting president from his own party. But the well-liked two-term California governor was the odds-on favorite before the 1980 primary. As a concession to the party’s establishment, the Gipper even put a Bush on the ticket.
***

Mr. Cruz’s most spectacular volte-face is on Donald Trump. For months he slipstreamed behind the billionaire, praising his “brash” frankness and validating his supposed conservative bona fides. Once Mr. Trump started to attack Mr. Cruz as he crept up in Iowa, the senator became Dr. Moreau.

“The Washington establishment is rushing over to support Donald Trump,” Mr. Cruz told reporters in Hollis, lambasting the businessman as the “deal-maker” he says he is. “The Washington establishment knows who’s going to keep the gravy train going, who’s going to keep cutting the deals and growing government. . . . He’ll go and cut a deal with Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, and those deals—he’ll do exactly what John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have done.”

Mr. Cruz is convinced he can defeat this establishment, whatever it is, not least because of his abiding faith in the power of democratic indignation—just as “millions of men and women rose up and became the Reagan revolution,” as he put it in Exeter. “If we stand together, if we stand as one, if we defend freedom, if we defend the Constitution, if we defend the Judeo-Christian values on which this country was built, if we stand as one, as ‘We the People,’ then we will bring back, we will restore, that last best hope for mankind, that shining city on a hill, that is the United States of America.”

A supporter asked him how he thought he could win the election. “We don’t do what the Washington consultants tell us every time,” Mr. Cruz replied. “They always say the way you win is you run to the middle, you run to the mushy middle, you blur the distinctions, you run as Democrat-lite. And every time we do that, we lose. . . .

“What’s abundantly clear is that if we nominate another candidate in the mold of a Bob Dole or a John McCain or a Mitt Romney—all of whom are good, honorable, decent men, they love their country—but what they did didn’t work. We got to do something different. I think the way we win—I think 2016 is like 1980. I think we win by following Reagan’s admonition to paint in bold colors, not pale pastels.”

One question is how well Mr. Cruz’s polarizing methods will wear in the pastel regions of the U.S. that will decide the election. Even in New Hampshire, the second most secular state, he asks the audience to pray for the country every day, appealing to 2 Chronicles 7:14: “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear their prayers, and forgive their sins, and I will heal their land.”

Another question, for students of history, is whether the modern GOP cartel really has cornered the political market. The establishment Republicans of the Reagan era weren’t moderates but through-and-through liberals, like Nelson Rockefeller and Lowell Weicker. Today they’d be Democrats.

The old order in politics is always dissolving, to be replaced by a new order that will grow old itself and dissolve in time. Mr. Cruz’s campaign may not be exposing the dissolution of the establishment so much as its nonexistence. That’s democracy.

Mr. Rago is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7495


« Reply #267 on: January 25, 2016, 02:02:25 PM »

IMHO a fundamental cause at the root of several of our biggest and seemingly most intractable problems is that the House of Reps has lost its will to use the power of the purse. 

Who has proven himself to be the exception on this and willing to stand alone if need be? 

Sen. Ted Cruz

(Sen. Mike Lee, Sen. Rand Paul too)

Cruz has Nathan Hale like bravery, but not Ronald Reagan like leadership qualities, IMHO.  Standing alone might be admirable but is NOT the goal.  

They can put that on my tombstone; here Doug stood alone.  He found a few like like minded people on the internet, but mostly he stood alone while the world went to hell.  But a President can make a difference and a conservative Republican one has a very difficult, uphill and challenging task to do everyday and the central focus of the work is to change hearts and minds, not just energize the people who already agree with you.

Taking a last stand against the liberal budget delays just slightly the force of the tide of leftism.  Cruz's efforts weren't organized or strategic.  I'm not blaming him, just pointing it out.  I'm looking for who can change the tide, who will bring the most people with him, have a lasting effect and make it harder for the country to relapse into leftism when the term is done.  And what ticket could lead in the right direction for 16 years, not 4, or zero like failed nominee or a single term President.  Who can win the Presidency and bring the House and Senate with them at the same time and keep it, not who is a bold, brave maverick.   Trump by his own admission is irrelevant to Congressional elections.  He can deal equally well with the mafia or a helpless widow.  A Cruz candidacy, if seen as far right and he is one of the 3 farthest right Senators, would likely lose the Senate even if he won the Presidency.  People in the middle vote for split tickets when they aren't fully on board with the agenda.  Note how Obama brought Republicans to power in Congress.  Who can inspire the most people to support change to principles of the American Creed, not just harness the energy of those already pissed off or win off the personal weakness of the opponent?  
____________________________________________

"...[Cruz] claims Reagan was more loathed in 1980 than he is now."

Reagan was a two term Governor of California and a two decade leader of the entire conservative movement in 1980, and th second place finisher of the previous cycle, losing only by a whisker to the incumbent President in his own party.  He also carried California three more times in 1980, 1984, and with his coattails in 1988.  That compares how with Cruz standing alone or losing key votes 97-3.  I'm sick of hearing Trump, Cruz (and Obama) comparing themselves to Reagan.  A different candidate reminds ME of Reagan but he is no Reagan either.  They should run the best way they know how and WE will tell them who compares best with Reagan. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #268 on: January 25, 2016, 03:16:17 PM »

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/the_case_for_ted_cruz.html#ixzz3yHfpvTJF
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #269 on: January 25, 2016, 04:06:05 PM »

Beck appears somewhere 00:25:00, Ignore what comes before that

http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/01/23/glenn-beck-makes-first-ever-presidential-endorsement-for-ted-cruz/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #270 on: January 26, 2016, 12:10:36 PM »

What Ted Cruz Values
The Texan is repelling millions who believe in an America of the future, not the past.
By Bret Stephens
Jan. 25, 2016 7:22 p.m. ET
546 COMMENTS

Rancho Mirage, Calif.

It’s 70 degrees in this desert oasis, where I’m attending a writers’ festival, and I’m looking up at a vista of snowcapped peaks, cerulean skies and pink clouds that looks like a Bob Ross painting, only happier. But there’s only so much California positivity a man can handle, especially when he doesn’t play golf. That snowbound den of depravity known as Manhattan is calling me home.

With apologies to Billy Joel, I’m in a New York values state of mind.

Maybe I’d be a better person if I got away from the coasts more often, or visited a gun range. Maybe my conservative principles would be less attenuated if I weren’t surrounded, as Ted Cruz put it the other day, by people who “are socially liberal or pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage,” and “focus around money and the media.” Maybe I should start listening to country music, the way Mr. Cruz did after he decided, in good Soviet fashion, that his musical taste ought to be dictated by political considerations.
Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz at a campaign stop Jan. 19 in Freedom, N.H. ENLARGE
Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz at a campaign stop Jan. 19 in Freedom, N.H. Photo: John Minchillo/Associated Press

And maybe I wouldn’t be quite so nauseated by the junior senator from Texas if the cynicism with which he mounted his attack last week on “New York values” weren’t so wholly matched by the sinister taint of an ambitious sophist who takes his audience for fools. Ted Cruz is the guy who made Donald Trump look tolerant and statesmanlike. That’s saying something.

Already it has been widely mentioned that Mr. Cruz’s wife, Heidi, is a senior executive with Goldman Sachs, which isn’t exactly an Iowa values kind of institution, and that Mr. Cruz’s 2012 run for Senate was financed with the help of $1 million in low-interest loans from Goldman. Also noted is that Mr. Cruz owes his political career to the backing of billionaire Peter Thiel, who is libertarian, gay, and perhaps wondering what he was thinking.

And it goes without saying that most of us would prefer the values of the lowliest New York Fire Department cadet over the cleverest Harvard Law graduate any day we need to get out of trouble that isn’t of our own making.
Opinion Journal Video
Editorial Board Member Joe Rago with a look at the Texas Senator's campaign strategy. Photo credit: Getty Images.

But the deeper problem with Mr. Cruz’s assault on the Big Apple isn’t his personal hypocrisy, or his two-bit stereotypes, or in biting the hands that fed him. That’s what we expect of politicians; the priced-in rate of running for high office. It’s the full-frontal assault on millions of GOP voters who, on one issue or another, share some of those dreaded New York values. The senator is trying to do to socially moderate Republicans what Democrats did to their own social conservatives when they barred pro-life Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey from speaking at the 1992 Democratic Convention. Yes, kids, there used to be Democrats who didn’t march in lockstep with Emily’s List.

There also used to be a theory of politics that, in two-party systems, it was in both parties’ interests to pitch the broadest possible tent; to have, as the great Si Kenen once put it, “no enemies, only friends and potential friends.”

But that’s not Mr. Cruz’s theory. He believes in the utility of enemies—the media; Washington; his fellow Republican senators; other squishes—because they’re such easy foils and because he’s convinced that polarization works and persecution complexes sell. Who cares about Republican voters in New York (or California, or Massachusetts, or Illinois) when not one of their votes will count in the Electoral College? Why waste time and energy courting the center-right when doing so will earn you the permanent enmity of the permanently angry?

The answer to that one lies in Cuyahoga and Pinellas and Loudoun counties—those purple lands in Ohio, Florida and Virginia where swing voters still decide elections in this country. Mr. Cruz needs to answer how he plans to win 50.1% in those states, not 70% of the Bible Belt. Such an answer is available to a Republican nominee, but only one who doesn’t demean other people’s values even when he doesn’t share them. Mr. Cruz needs to study old Ronald Reagan clips to understand the difference between having strong beliefs and being an insufferable jerk about them.

In the meantime, let’s put in a word for those New Yorkers and their values: the immigrant strivers; the capitalist-philanthropists; the skyscraper builders; the professional classes of lawyers and publishers and doctors and money-managers and (even) journalists; the cops; the opera lovers; the headline writers at the New York Post; the people who believe their true identity lies in the near future not the ancestral past. This is the America of aspiration and competition, of honest self-reinvention, of getting along in crowded places, of letting the smaller differences slide.

Mr. Cruz has the personal biography to have made New York’s story his own. He made other choices. I know plenty of New Yorkers won’t be shy about telling him what he ought to do with himself, and the rest of the Republican Party should take their views—and maybe even their values—to heart.

Write bstephens@wsj.com
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4970


« Reply #271 on: January 26, 2016, 12:46:43 PM »

Cruz made a big mistake with his comment about NY values.  OTOH as Levin pointed out we know what he meant with regards to NY being a Democrat stronghold (Boomer is not a Republican, nor was Pataki, though Gulliani seems to be somewhat of an exception) and part of the DC establishment.

That said it was a tactical error.  Yet the author of this piece from the WSJ was certainly never a fan of Cruz so we know where he is coming from too.   The WSJ is part of the establishment.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7495


« Reply #272 on: January 26, 2016, 02:56:14 PM »

Cruz made a big mistake with his comment about NY values.  OTOH as Levin pointed out we know what he meant with regards to NY being a Democrat stronghold (Boomer is not a Republican, nor was Pataki, though Gulliani seems to be somewhat of an exception) and part of the DC establishment.

That said it was a tactical error.  Yet the author of this piece from the WSJ was certainly never a fan of Cruz so we know where he is coming from too.   The WSJ is part of the establishment.

Bret Stephens is a very thoughtful, anti-Obama, foreign policy oriented conservative and always a worthwhile read IMO.  Don't let the Pulitzer Prize make you think he is establishment.

I don't think Ted Cruz thought he made a mistake saying NY values, nor when he continues to lump Rubio in with Schumer.  It's an intentional dig that plays with the base without regard to how it plays further. 

From the piece:  "...those purple lands in Ohio, Florida and Virginia where swing voters still decide elections in this country. Mr. Cruz needs to answer how he plans to win 50.1% in those states, not 70% of the Bible Belt."

Far more eloquent, but that is what I have been saying about Cruz.  Like Trump, he is trying to win a strong plurality in a divided field but he is not even talking to the other voters needed to be President. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #273 on: January 26, 2016, 08:21:57 PM »

Agreed, Rubio is the far better choice in this regard.  Cruz's theory essentially is that moderation (Dole, McCain, Romney) fails to bring out the base and that he can win by so doing.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #274 on: January 27, 2016, 02:11:03 PM »

https://stream.org/cruz-dares-take-king-corn/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13266


« Reply #275 on: January 27, 2016, 02:13:11 PM »


Integrity.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7495


« Reply #276 on: January 27, 2016, 03:10:22 PM »

Integrity.

I agree in the context of the Iowa caucuses.  More impressive if his position was in conflict with the special interests of Houston and Texas than Iowa.

The important thing is to articulate how this needs to be not ended alone, punishing Iowa, but ended in the context of ending all these boondoggles for all special interests in all states, to be persuasive on that and to get it done.

The government is the referee of the level playing field of production in America, not an investor, supplier, competitor, contributor or board member.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7495


« Reply #277 on: January 28, 2016, 10:42:50 AM »

Agreed, Rubio is the far better choice in this regard.  Cruz's theory essentially is that moderation (Dole, McCain, Romney) fails to bring out the base and that he can win by so doing.

True that this is Cruz's strategy if in fact he has one for the general election.  In truth, you need both strategies.  You must turn out the base AND win the middle.

One take from Romney 2012 is that he lost by 5 million votes while 6 million white voters stayed home.  But whites split 60/40 for Romney, not 90/10, and Romney especially wasn't strong with the ones who stayed home.  Cruz has turned other factions of the party against him opening the door for other problems, a centrist third party challenge for example.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/28/cruz_trump_and_the_missing_white_voters_129465.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #278 on: January 28, 2016, 10:38:06 PM »

http://www.mrconservative.com/2016/01/68912-ted-cruzs-secret-history-was-just-leaked-this-changes-everything/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13266


« Reply #279 on: January 28, 2016, 11:21:17 PM »


I really hope Cruz makes it.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #280 on: January 29, 2016, 10:58:18 AM »

Frankie's recommendation does a nice job of fleshing him out as a man.  I too liked it, but a tough night for Ted last night.  The "likability" factor has always been a weak link for him and he did not do himself any favors last night.  Even Chris Wallace smacked him back a couple of times.

A question to him included Rubio's attack about the three defense appropriation bills against which Cruz voted and he ran out of time (deliberately I suspect) addressing other aspects of the question first.  Rubio was able to get in the additional point that the only defense spending bill that Cruz has voted for was Rand Paul's bill of big cuts.   I suspect Rubio will continue to make hay with this.

I thought Cruz's discussion of ethanol was nothing less than masterful.   Though likely to go over the head of the national audience, the Iowa audience, which is intensely interested in this and extremely well informed about it, I think will appreciate the nuance and how deftly he answered accusations of having flip flopped.

For those who can follow legalistic parliamentary nuance closely, I think Cruz did answer the question about having flip flopped on legalization (and Megyn Kelly acknowledged this to Ted in a quickie post debate interview) Ultimately, for those inclined to support Cruz his invocation of Sen. Sessions will suffice as far as this point goes, but I suspect many people are going to sum it up as described by Chris Christie. 

Great opening statement by Ted.  Humorous, likable, alpha mode in setting the tone.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4970


« Reply #281 on: February 02, 2016, 10:07:41 AM »

https://www.tedcruz.org/tax_plan/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7495


« Reply #282 on: February 02, 2016, 02:52:24 PM »


I tried to make my argument against this previously over here:
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2419.msg93351#msg93351

1)   Question: What is happening or has happened recently in American politics that makes Cruz (and Crafty and ccp) think that America is suddenly poised to go from the current, all-out attack on income and wealth to eliminating the income tax altogether or in Cruz' case lowering the rate to a flat tax of 10% next year.  With Trump leading the Republicans and 90% tax rate advocate Bernie leading Trump by double digits, we about to cut by 3/4 (75%) the tax burden of the rich.  Sorry, I don't believe that.

2)  The Cruz, Subtraction Method, Tax Inclusive, Business Transfer Tax is a VAT (Value Added Tax).  http://taxfoundation.org/blog/ted-cruz-s-business-flat-tax-primer  His denial of that label is to avoid, not take on the debate.  A consumption tax or VAT would be GREAT if it was instead of an income / production tax.  A 16% VAT would be acceptable if it was capped at 16%.  A 10% income tax along with a small VAT would be great if it were constitutionally capped at 10%.  Capping it isn't possible and isn't even proposed.   What no one will explain to me is how they think that conservatives starting a new layer of taxation in America will turn out to be a good thing in the long run after liberals raise it all up.  They will and it isn't.

3)  The inclusive Business Transfer Tax is on ALL transactions, ALL revenues, not just on profits like an income tax.  The 16% rate doesn't work if you exclude ANYTHING.  Write in exceptions and raise the rate accordingly.  So in addition to labor, we are going to put a 16% new tax on the price of new homes, used homes, new cars - right after we bailed out the car companies, etc.  Are you people kidding?  If you were starting from scratch, fine, but what you have here is massive disruption without any plan for a transition.  "Wouldn't it be great if..." isn't a plan.  Yes, the collapse of auto companies takes down entire related industries, entire cities, towns, regions, even states.  Yes, the housing industry can collapse the economy, it already did.  You can't shut down construction and the trades without hurting employment in the short AND MEDIUM run, and if the system collapses and we change course midstream, there is no success in the long run either.  If the government bears the cost of displaced workers, you aren't going to cut spending either.

4)  Even with dynamic scoring, the Cruz plan comes up short on revenues.

5)  Someone please explain to me how and why they believe a future Dem President and a future Dem Congress won't keep the Cruz VAT, raise it up to European levels AND restore business and personal income tax rates back to at least where they were before.  If you believe they never again control and will not do that, I have a block of North Minneapolis I would like to sell you - poised for a major comeback.

Respectfully,  Doug
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7495


« Reply #283 on: February 03, 2016, 09:55:12 AM »

'Frontrunner' Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.  Who knew?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ruling-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/article/2582259
"The Candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth," the board said, explaining Cruz met the criteria because he "did not have to take any steps or go through a naturalization process at some point after birth."
--------------------------------------------------------

This should go in the Trump thread, not one of his better moments.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4970


« Reply #284 on: February 03, 2016, 11:43:39 AM »

on apparent false information given to voters that Be Carson was dropping out *before* the caucus.  How did this happen?

Sarah Palin

Dirty Politics: Witnessing Firsthand It's Always Heartbreaking, Never Surprising
Thank heavens Donald Trump opened so many eyes to the lies, corruption and total lack of accountability that come so naturally to the permanent political class. And Sen. Ted Cruz was spot on when he once noted that "millions of Americans are asking for accountability and truth." Which is why it's so curious - and saddens us - this lack of accountability with the lies of Cruz's own campaign.
Cruz's campaign chairman, U.S. Representative Steve King, is lying, and good for Dr. Ben Carson for calling this out. King, who's previously asked for and received my endorsement, time and resources to support his own election, is still lying about my altruistic support of Mr. Trump, and he's refused to provide any evidence to the contrary. And, this U.S. Congressman actually lied to his own constituents on behalf of Cruz, regarding a good man, Dr. Carson. He told voters Carson was dropping out of the Presidential race immediately before the Iowa caucus, causing a relative uproar inside the process, so the word would spread and he could rack up more votes for his candidate, Cruz. That's a dirty trick. Dr. Carson deserved better. The voters deserved better!
Where is the accountability for these political actions? Very sad; typical Washington tactics. THIS is why "the status quo has got to go."
Our friend Dr. Carson put it so well:
"As Christians, of course we accept people’s apologies, we also have to ask ourselves is this acceptable to us, the American people, or should there be some accountability? There should be some consequences for things. You don’t just say ‘oh, okay, sorry… okay let’s move on.’ The damage was done to me, it wasn’t done to them.”
We've had eight years of a reckless President, accountable to no one, pushing this country to the brink. Why would we ever take a risk repeating that? We are never going to turn this country around if we keep electing "more of the same." Just like conservatives have been preaching in opposition to Obama's political tactics for years: actions speak louder than words.
The Cruz Campaign's actions to destroy a good man's efforts to serve are no different than Obama's practice of not holding anyone accountable. Typical politics. Typical politicians.
Here's background:
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4970


« Reply #285 on: February 03, 2016, 11:47:22 AM »

Doug,

I am not sure I follow you with regards to Cruz tax plan that a VAT is ok with constitutional caps and what is to stop a Dem pres and congress from simply reversing this?

A dem pres and congress can reverse any thing.

So what makes anything Rubio can do NOT subject to the same reversal?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7495


« Reply #286 on: February 03, 2016, 02:11:24 PM »

Doug,  I am not sure I follow you with regards to Cruz tax plan that a VAT is ok with constitutional caps and what is to stop a Dem pres and congress from simply reversing this?  A dem pres and congress can reverse any thing.


My point about const'l caps won't happen, just a hypothetical solution.  Think 38 states when new amendments are discussed.  Neither side has that kind of control.  If we did, we wouldn't have this problem or need the limits.

I am too wordy but a VAT is a big government, socialist tool.  Crazy for a conservative R to hand this seeliberal Dems, I very strongly believe.

If we were starting from scratch and if it would never be raised and the other taxes would never come back, the Cruz plan is a great one.  We aren't, it will, they will and it isn't.

Yes they will of course work to undo whatever Rubio can accomplish, but don't give them more weapons to turn against us.

Lower the rates to 25% instead of 35 if you want but you still have to get through the Tim Russerts of today.  If you can't demonstrate that it doesn't blow up the deficit, cut Granny off the meds and starve the poor while giving tax cuts to the rich, then you let them paint Hillary or Bernie as the responsible one.

So maybe Rubio's thinking is this has to be done incrementally this time.   Simplify, deregulate lower some rates and see some growth come back, then go for larger reform.

Cruz thinking as I see it is to pull a Herman Cain.  Go big and bold for the conservative primaries with something that will never pass and won't work if it did.

In addition to killing the housing market, (16% federal tax on rent?), we are going to add a 16% tax on healthcare, medical devices, drugs?  I don't think so.  A large part of those are paid by Govt so put a tax on a tax?  A 16% tax on defense spending?  Start making subtractions and the rate goes up.  A 24% VAT, 30%?

My two cents.  Crafty likes the Cruz proposal but I don't see how he answers these objections.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 02:25:55 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #287 on: February 04, 2016, 09:47:18 AM »

Well, I'm off shortly for six hours of working with one of America's heroes so not much time, but basically any tax can be changed or increased.  Cruz's proposal was designed by Art Laffer, someone whom I respect, particularly when it comes to tax issues!  I have heard/read Art explain it, and Ted explain it and what I heard made good sense to me.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7495


« Reply #288 on: February 05, 2016, 10:55:51 AM »

Well, I'm off shortly for six hours of working with one of America's heroes so not much time, but basically any tax can be changed or increased.  Cruz's proposal was designed by Art Laffer, someone whom I respect, particularly when it comes to tax issues!  I have heard/read Art explain it, and Ted explain it and what I heard made good sense to me.

No doubt Art Laffer is among the best ever on the topic.  [Although not necessarily an expert on playing game theory with Chuck Schumer, the msm and the left.]   The Cruz plan was also written by Stephen Moore who defends it here today:
http://www.investors.com/politics/viewpoint/stephen-moore-which-candidate-has-the-fairest-tax-plan-of-all/

Neither of them address my concerns and Moore introduces an additional concern:  
"Imports are taxed at the flat rate when they are brought into the U.S. ..."    
A 16% tariff that no one in the world will retaliate against.  Seriously?

I fully agree in principle that income tax rates need to be lower and splitting the public sector burden between production and consumption would be ideal in a perfect world.  Politically, I find the whole thing naive, that we will either drop income tax rates on the rich to 10% next year or that if we did they wouldn't just go right back up in the aftermath to where they started or worse leaving us with one more level of taxation brought to you by conservative Republicans.  40% of Republicans think the rich pay too little tax now (one poll says).  What percentage of the 2016 general electorate think the income tax burden on 'the rich' should be cut by 3/4 in the face of $20 trillion of debt?

Frustrating me further is that Marco Rubio's plan to not tax capital gains at all is also politically unrealistic and his top rate is too high to get excited about it as a major reform.

Worst of all is that these two plans that will never become law would both be wonderful for me personally with my life savings tied up in assets that can't be sold because of punitive taxation.

Next step politically would be to decouple these plans from these politicians.  Whoever wins gets to pick and choose the best elements from all the plans and take into account a) the political implications and the fact that it has to go through the House and Senate, b) the transition, and c) the aftermath.
--------------------------------------

I am sorry to have to point out Stephen Moore being disingenuous (from the link above):

"Rubio and his allies are charging that the flat tax that imposes a low tax rate on the broadest possible business tax base, which includes wages and salaries and benefits, will quickly rise from the teens to the twenties or even 30%.
What is ironic about these attacks is that the rates Rubio imagines would still be lower than his own plan’s income tax rate of 35%.
It’s hard to imagine that the two most relentless anti-big-government crusaders in Congress, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, have a secret tax plan to supersize the government."


1)  The Rubio point is that the income tax rate will most certainly rise back up AND they have introduced a new layer of taxation that will stay forever and go up.

2)  It is NOT Cruz who will raise it; it is the liberals who will follow.

3)  Rubio's rate is 0%, not 35% on the majority of investment income, so Moore is falsely comparing two different things that will never happen.

The ball IMO goes back into Paul Ryan's court.  We need a tax plan that the entire party and movement can get behind and win with, not unrealistic ideas over which we can snip at each other.

« Last Edit: February 05, 2016, 11:14:31 AM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4970


« Reply #289 on: February 05, 2016, 11:07:08 AM »

Doug,

My sense is the only way to lower rates is to get rid of loopholes.

When i see rich with living on large estates paying less property tax than myself because of BS farm deductions for having a few corn stalks or a bee keeper than we got to get rid of deductions.

That in my view is the only way to get a few of the 49% who pay nothing to grudgingly go along. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7495


« Reply #290 on: February 05, 2016, 11:38:18 AM »

Doug,
My sense is the only way to lower rates is to get rid of loopholes.

When i see rich with living on large estates paying less property tax than myself because of BS farm deductions for having a few corn stalks or a bee keeper than we got to get rid of deductions.

That in my view is the only way to get a few of the 49% who pay nothing to grudgingly go along. 

Agree.  And vice versa.  If you want people with choices to maximize their productive power, pay on every dollar and not quit or hide, the rates have to be lower.

And your other point is paramount, how do you get the '49% who pay nothing' to see the necessity of lowering rates on the productive to grow the economy?  It has to be based on a positive belief in the future.  If you are young (or female or black or Hispanic or gay or ?) that an opportunity-oriented society is better than Soviet style of dictated benefits society (that is collapsing) and if you are old, that you feel that same way for the opportunities and future for your children and grandchildren.  These are concepts that can be sold to minimum wage workers and retirees, not just entrepreneurs and investors.  Even a person in legitimate need of government safety net support needs to understand that we need a healthy, vigorous private sector to make that possible.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7495


« Reply #291 on: February 05, 2016, 12:10:14 PM »

Here are some current income tax rates over at the countries that decided to rely more heavily on the VAT tax:

Sweden       56.90%
Portugal      56.50%
Denmark     55.60%
Belgium       53.70%
Netherlands  52.00%
Spain           52.00%

As G M might say, luckily that could never happen here.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4970


« Reply #292 on: February 05, 2016, 12:33:32 PM »

"And your other point is paramount, how do you get the '49% who pay nothing' to see the necessity of lowering rates on the productive to grow the economy?  It has to be based on a positive belief in the future.  If you are young (or female or black or Hispanic or gay or ?) that an opportunity-oriented society is better than Soviet style of dictated benefits society (that is collapsing) and if you are old, that you feel that same way for the opportunities and future for your children and grandchildren."

I agree with you. 

You tell the 49% you won't get anything if the payers cannot keep and invest most of their money.  Somebody HAS to pay for them.  Also don't you want for yourself or your children to have the opportunity to get wealthy?  Or to be doomed to a life of working for the State?

So how is Marco going to do this?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #293 on: February 06, 2016, 09:27:52 AM »

https://www.facebook.com/tedcruzpage/videos/10153865533127464/

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7495


« Reply #294 on: February 06, 2016, 11:49:00 AM »


Good messenging, lively music, still no attempt to answer the objections to it.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #295 on: February 07, 2016, 11:19:15 AM »

I confess at the moment I simply don't have the energy to enter into it and have simply engaged in "appeal to authority"; the clip is simply proffered as an example of how the plan is being marketed-- which is important too.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13266


« Reply #296 on: February 07, 2016, 12:12:40 PM »

https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/more-arguments-against-the-value-added-tax/

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35848


« Reply #297 on: February 07, 2016, 01:00:40 PM »

Let's take this over to the Tax Policy thread.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7495


« Reply #298 on: February 07, 2016, 09:55:32 PM »

I confess at the moment I simply don't have the energy to enter into it and have simply engaged in "appeal to authority"; the clip is simply proffered as an example of how the plan is being marketed-- which is important too.

Fair enough on the appeal to authority. I will agree that Art Laffer is the perhaps best economically, but I would not put his political instincts above Reagan's.

Dan Mitchell from Heritage and Cato with a PhD from George Mason is someone I trust also.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!