Ted Cruz gives good answers, but it’s been two debates now in which it sure seemed like nobody wanted to give him any time to speak. The one time he was given a truly substantive and interesting question he came up with perhaps the most meaningful answer of the debate; namely, on the question of John Roberts as the Supreme Court Chief Justice appointed by George W. Bush. This occasioned a back-and-forth with Jeb! Bush, who attempted to chide Cruz for now being critical of Roberts but was steamrolled by a brilliant answer. Cruz noted that conservatives keep voting for Republicans and never seem to be satisfied with the results, largely because Republican presidents (all recently named Bush) take the easy way out rather than to do the hard things.
And Cruz looked at the nominations of David Souter instead of Edith Jones and Roberts instead of Mike Luttig as examples of the failure to deliver for conservatives. He noted that if Jones and Luttig were on the court instead of Souter and Roberts, Obamacare would have been found unconstitutional three years ago and all the state laws banning gay marriage would still be alive. Cruz then admitted supporting Roberts as the nominee, and said he regrets it.... what Cruz said was spot-on. The Bushes nominated two Supreme Court justices with no particular paper trail to prove an ideology, and in so doing weakened the court when to engage a full-throated ideological fight could have changed America for the better. That’s a great reason not to elect Jeb! as president — particularly when despite his reticence to use his last name the former Florida governor has done little to demonstrate his presidency would be any different from the uninspiring tenure of his father and brother.
The Cruz Conjecture
Via D29, a point about Cruz in the last debate:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
What Cruz carefully omitted to mention was whether Luttig or Jones were interested in getting the Borking that Bork and Thomas got during their confirmation hearings. I don't know that level of interest, but Cruz surely does.
What Cruz also chose to omit mention of was that the trust between Bush and Luttig was destroyed by their respective handling of the terrorist Padilla's case.
Curz' sad-eyed and censored description of those potential nominees and the actual nominees is part and parcel with his fundamental dishonesty. I supported him for Senate over Dewhurst because of the latter's character. But that's a low bar, indeed.
Eric Hines
Nevertheless, Cruz' answer was correct. The Republicans regularly nominate safe choices in the vain hope they can convince the media and the donor class they, the Republicans, aren't "extremists." Meanwhile, the Democrats never worry about that because they know the media won't question their nominees and the Republican leadership won't offer any real opposition. It sure would be nice if we had an actual opposition party in this country.
Republicans aren't the only ones guilty of toeing the party line and Obeying Authority in all things small or large.
In a debate format like this, I wouldn't really expect Cruz to give the complete history of Luttig, Jones, and their relationships with Bush.
However, I'm interested in the claim that he's fundamentally dishonest. Could you tell us more about that?
Joel and I often agree, and do here as well. Cruz is substantially correct that, had we played the nominations over the last 20 years the way the left-leaning party does, we'd have an America that looks a lot more like America in spite of the winds of change blowing through the Executive branch. We're here because the Republican leadership chose to avoid a fight over nominees, while the Democratic leadership has steadfastly appointed young justices who see absolutely no need for the Federal government -- let alone the Supreme Court -- to be in any way restrained from 'doing good' however they see it. The absolute litmus test for conservatives shouldn't be abortion, but whether the judge believes in enforcing Constitutional limits on the Federal government according to original intent.
In a debate format like this, I wouldn't really expect Cruz to give the complete history of Luttig, Jones, and their relationships with Bush.
No complete history. Just what I summarized above. It would have fit fine with the extended sound-bite debate format. He also could have not mentioned the thing at all. His censored screed was plainly self-serving.
Cruz' dishonesty: couple examples: one was the argument over tax increases a few years ago and Cruz' decision to blow up Boehner's Plan B. Plan B was a small tax increase to pass up to the Senate. Either it would pass and become law or Obama would veto it, or it would fail in the Senate, with the Democrats on the record voting for a large tax increase in an election year. Cruz blocked it utterly and forced a government shutdown, with no follow-on plan. Republicans lost in the press (and how many more seats might they have won without the fiasco); their communications failures are a separate story. The outcome, aside from the shutdown, was an even larger tax increase. Cruz knew full well that these would be the outcomes; however, he also knew full well that raising this sort of stink would make him the darling of the tea partiers. Cruz blatantly put his personal political gain ahead of nation.
Another example: in the primaries that same year in a state a couple of states north of here, Cruz offered $75k and his endorsement to one Republican candidate, if that candidate would accede to certain Cruz demands. That candidate declined to accede; Cruz promptly gave the money and the endorsement to the man's opponent. His endorsement plainly is for sale and not reserved for a deserving candidate.
Eric Hines
We're here because the Republican leadership chose to avoid a fight over nominees...
Ummm... that's just plain wrong. Anyone who remembers ANY of the confirmation hearings of Republican-appointed justices cannot possibly with a single shred of accuracy describe them as smooth sailing. Clarence Thomas, anyone?
Roberts' confirmation was bitterly fought and contentious. I remember, because I wrote about it in great detail. Alito's confirmation hearings left his wife in tears. Grim, you wrote about that so I'm literally stunned to see you make such a claim.
There is an actual difference between choosing a candidate who has a chance of being confirmed in the real world, and "trying to avoid a fight".
The fight is a foregone conclusion with these people. Dirty tricks and shameless behavior by both the media and the Democrats are foregone conclusions.
Eric has the right of it (pun intended). I have no use for people who pick fights they know they can't win, or brag about being willing to pick fights we can't win for personal gain.
The shutdown was a freaking disaster, both from a public relations standpoint and from a national security standpoint. DoD is STILL suffering the bad effects. Some Republicans allowed themselves to be manipulated into an obvious trap a five year old should have spotted. If this is conservative "smart power", may the saints preserve us from it.
Fight smarter, not harder.
I have no use for people who pick fights they know they can't win, or brag about being willing to pick fights we can't win for personal gain.
To clarify, that was aimed at Cruz, et al. Not anyone here.
Yah, that shutdown was a disaster, alright. Republicans gained seats in the House AND the Senate, and now (co-incidence??) outright OWN most of the State legislatures/governors' chairs. By the way, the House majority is the largest since about 1930 or so.
Friggin' terrible results. As to "how many more" seats could have been gained--that's not a serious question, any more than "....if the South had won...".
The fight is not over SCOTUS, the majority of whose members are evidently non compos mentis on matters of nature (Roe/Obergefell) and language (tax? fine?). It is over something far more important than the judiciary.
As Fiorina said, it is over the national character--and nationalism, pure.
Cass:
Here's what I remember writing about Roberts, although there may be more I don't recall:
"The script against Alito and Roberts sounds so similar because there really isn't anything particularly negative to say about either candidate, yet the Democrats in the Senate feel obligated to oppose them vigorously for reasons of fundraising. If there were real areas of concern, we would be hearing about those instead. In the absence of a real issue, you get "fill in the candidate's name here" boilerplate rhetoric that lacks any real power because it is obviously not serious. Boilerplate sounds and feels like boilerplate."
Thanks, Eric. I'll have to look into them.
I don't know what to think about the shutdown. Republicans lost because the MSM said they did. It takes 2 to tango; Obama and the Democrats were every bit as responsible. They could have avoided the shutdown by agreeing to Republican demands. But the MSM portrayed the Republicans as entirely unreasonable and wholly responsible for it, and that stuck.
At this point, I question the intelligence of any Republican who even hopes for fair coverage from the MSM, but it took a few years of coverage of the Bush presidency for me to fully understand just how unfair the MSM is. I'm willing to cut Republicans who were fairly new to office at that time a little slack. They thought they were doing what their constituents demanded, and what they thought was right.
The Republican base wanted a fight, so they picked one. When you choose to fight, you understand you may lose. If you lose and survive, you learn and do things differently next time. That's what the Republicans seem to have done. I have a hard time with shooting the survivors now.
That said, I am far from the most informed person on this topic. I may be completely wrong.
The shutdown WAS a disaster if you care about things getting done and you don't think arbitrary cuts and furloughs in the Defense department are the right response to out of control government spending on entitlements.
My husband's office was literally crippled by the shutdown. People didn't have the option of coming to work anyway (for free) - they were literally told they would get in trouble if they came to work. He was so worried about it that he would have worked for free - he already works 50% more than the 8 hours a day he's supposed to be working (just as he did when he was on active duty).
That shouldn't be anyone's idea of smart governing or sensible spending reform.
I don't know what to think about the shutdown. Republicans lost because the MSM said they did.
The typical Progressive excuse--it's somebody else's fault I screwed up. It's surprising to hear it employed here. The Republicans lost because they had no coherent plan for what to do with the shutdown; no coherent plan for what to do with the aftermath of the shutdown, even had they gotten what they claimed they were after; and no coherent message or effort of delivery to sell their position, the necessity of the shutdown, and the Democrats' cause of it. Their failure was their own; it was not caused by anyone or anything else.
I question the intelligence of any Republican who even hopes for fair coverage from the MSM....
I question the intelligence of any Republican who thinks the MSM is the only way to get coverage or the only outlet for talking to constituents.
I'm willing to cut Republicans who were fairly new to office at that time a little slack. They thought they were doing what their constituents demanded, and what they thought was right.
How does this apply only to the fairly new--which means they were not lacking experience, and they got themselves elected? Is it not barely possible that the rest of the Republicans in Congress--those impertinent ones who don't fall into line with every right-side demand--are also doing what their constituents demanded, and what they thought was right? Or are those others bound by the right-side constituents' demands, and those other constituents should simply sit down and shut up?
Finally, for the general rest, a couple of questions: "you" decry the Republican majority's inability to get anything done in Congress, despite majorities in both houses. What's your plan for getting six Democrats to support a cloture vote on a Republican bill? Related to that, for those of "you" who demand the nuclear option to end the filibuster (as I have done, knowing I have no such plan), what's your plan, since you have none for finding six Democrats, for finding 13 Democrats to support a Senate Rule change to end the filibuster, a change that would work against Democrat Party interest in the immediate term? I actually have heard one such, centered on Reid's implementation of the nuclear option: a simple majority vote. Which means the Republican establishment, decried as dishonest because they're not "conservative" enough, should be dishonest on this one thing, because it's convenient, this time.
I'm not picking on Tom, it's just that his comment consolidates all the sources of Republican--and that includes too much of the pseudo-conservative right half of the party--failure about which I've been writing for years into one convenient place.
Eric Hines
Which means the Republican establishment, decried as dishonest because they're not "conservative" enough, should be dishonest on this one thing...
According to Cruz, McConnell lied to his face in the view of the rest of the Republican Senators. It's not just that McConnell isn't conservative enough, and it's not even just that he's dishonest. It's that when he lies, it's for the other side.
"they were literally told they would get in trouble if they came to work."
But that's not a function of the shutdown per se- it's a political response to the shut down by the executive. That should serve, if we had a republican party in Washington that had any clue on messaging, as a club with which to beat the other party with, but they really didn't do that. did they?
As for having no coherent plan, of course not- we disagreed as a party on what should be our goals. Boehner and McConnell have their view (maintain the democrat boogeyman to keep getting incumbent Republicans elected in house and senate races), and Cruz and others wanting to start making stands and forcing the Democrats to expend effort to win more ground rather than handing it to them, so the people would be faced with the facts of what the Dems are doing more clearly.
So, no coherency, naturally, but that's not the fault of but one side of the party.
According to Cruz, McConnell lied to his face in the view of the rest of the Republican Senators.
And you believe Cruz?
By the bye, Cruz also lied in Wednesday's debate about the depth of his support for CJ Roberts. Given that lie, what's the value of his debating apology for voting for him at confirmation?
Leaving that red herring aside, are you suggesting with that offer that the Republicans should be as dishonest as Reid in changing a Senate Rule that's inconvenient to them?
So, no coherency, naturally, but that's not the fault of but one side of the party.
Of course. It's that evil, experienced gang of thieves. Somebody--anybody--else's fault.
Lots of bad tactics by those experienced, too, but cutting each other's throats helps the nation how, exactly?
And I ask again: what's [Cruz'] plan for finding 6 Democrats to support a cloture vote on a Republican bill? What's [Cruz'] plan for getting rid of the filibuster, completely or just on convenient bills? Cruz, in particular, has none. Congress actually doing something wouldn't be as near-term beneficial to his personal political career.
Eric Hines
And you believe Cruz?
The charge he made in the speech on the floor of the Senate named the entire Republican caucus as witnesses. If he's lying about that, it should be pretty easy to establish.
Rather than making this an honor issue, though -- Senator X's word is better than Senator Y's -- let me speak for a moment like an intelligence officer. Given the nature of the charge, the venue, and the witnesses named, I think from the subsequent reaction that the charge is more likely true than not. That's not a commitment to doubt or back the word of either man, just an evaluation of the percentages given the facts.
You can broaden the thing to honor, if you wish. I'm staying on the narrower path of lying.
There was a Democratic Congressman who claimed he'd been spat on, and another Democratic Congressman who claimed he'd been shouted at with a racial slur, in the immediate aftermath of Obamacare's passage. Both of those incidents were claimed to have occurred in front of vasty witnesses--the crowds on the Capital Steps.
No one has corroborated either those Democrats' charges or Cruz', or none that I've heard supporting Cruz' claim. Given Cruz' established behavior, I have no more reason to believe his claims than I have to believe McConnell's silence on the matter.
There aren't any facts in either case--just the claims of those men.
Eric Hines
You can broaden the thing to honor, if you wish. I'm staying on the narrower path of lying.
If you think you can charge a man with lying without it being a question of honor, I'm not sure we understand each other. I mean, these are Senators of course. It may be that standards are somewhat diluted.
Of course, it's nothing of the sort. There are lots of ways to achieve dishonor. I'm just staying with the lying path.
Eric Hines
Well, in any case, it's a shame they can't resolve it in the old fashion. I don't know, to answer your question, if Cruz can be trusted. He speaks well, and forcefully, but he has a sly look about him. That may be unfair as a way to judge a man, but then again it may be our senses are wiser than we give them credit for being.
I am sure I don't trust McConnell.
The shutdown WAS a disaster if you care about things getting done and you don't think arbitrary cuts and furloughs in the Defense department are the right response to out of control government spending on entitlements.
So members of your husband's office were not part of the 80++% of "the gummint" who are considered "essential." (And who all got back-pay, by the way.)
What you are telling all of us is that Gummint can't even design an effective "shutdown," Cassandra. And you wonder why most of us in flyover country think Teh Gummint is Gulliver?
What's your plan for getting six Democrats to support a cloture vote on a Republican bill?
Reconciliation.
I give up. Not to put too fine a point on it, you don't know what you're talking about. According to the GAO's report, 81.4% of civilian DoD personnel were furloughed (624.4K furloughed, 142.6K exempted). I'm pretty sure they have a better idea of what happened than anyone here. Your numbers are exactly backwards.
Essential personnel were mostly limited to three broad categories: those in combat zones, Navy shipyard workers, and those whose physical presence was necessary to directly protect life or property. The default status (both then and now) was "not exempt", not the other way 'round.
It all seems so simple when you don't understand how the federal government works.
And what does back pay have to do with anything? Did you see me mention pay? The issue under discussion was not being allowed to do your job. And as far as "the government" being "incapable of designing an effective shutdown", that's just plain ignorant.
Last time we went through this idiocy, his office was planning for the shutdown well in advance. They had no choice - had it not occurred, they would have wasted tons of money but the alternative (not planning) was a non-starter. So other important work didn't get done.
I don't wish to be insulting - I mean that - but there's little point in arguing with someone who so clearly has no idea what he's talking about. None of this is simple stuff, unless you're sitting in an armchair somewhere, informed by having read a newspaper article or three and with absolutely NO idea of the work involved. The waste is absolutely criminal.
Perhaps you think this is all just some kind of galactic pi$$ing contest between the parties with no real world implications? My husband served his country for 30 years in the Marine Corps, got out and got a highly paid job that was far easier than anything he ever did in the Marines, and gave that up to have the opportunity to continue serving for less pay and more hours. He is foolish enough to actually believe this stuff is important, whatever you may think. And a large part of what his office does is plan for helping the civilian sector in case of a crippling attack on our infrastructure, just as during Katrina when the DoD were the only ones who were able to get in there and help out fast.
I've had just about enough of listening to people disparage intelligent, hard working people who have (in some cases) devoted their lives to keeping this country safe. That broad brush you use so freely is pretty indiscriminate. And all to frequently unjust.
Me: ... Republicans lost because the MSM said they did. It takes 2 to tango; Obama and the Democrats were every bit as responsible. They could have avoided the shutdown by agreeing to Republican demands. But the MSM portrayed the Republicans as entirely unreasonable and wholly responsible for it, and that stuck.
Eric: The typical Progressive excuse--it's somebody else's fault I screwed up.
Far from blaming someone else, I put the blame where it belongs, on both parties, and the MSM for the coverage of it.
Eric: I question the intelligence of any Republican who thinks the MSM is the only way to get coverage or the only outlet for talking to constituents.
Sure, or at least, talking to the few who actually pay attention. Most of their constituents, however, can't actually remember who their representatives are, and aren't going to pay attention to anything but what the MSM spoon feeds them between the latest episodes of "Narcissism and Nonsense" or basketball games.
Me: I'm willing to cut Republicans who were fairly new to office at that time a little slack. They thought they were doing what their constituents demanded, and what they thought was right.
Eric: Is it not barely possible that the rest of the Republicans in Congress--those impertinent ones who don't fall into line with every right-side demand--are also doing what their constituents demanded, and what they thought was right? Or are those others bound by the right-side constituents' demands, and those other constituents should simply sit down and shut up?
Well, that works both ways. Your demand seems to be that all of the constituents who did support it should sit down and shut up. Notice that I did not attack Republicans who did not go along with the shutdown; I assume they too thought they were doing what was best.
My answer, though, is that representatives should generally try to do what their constituents want, even if that means some chaos because many Republicans want X and many others want not-X.
For some years now, there have been at least two different visions for what the Republican Party's goals should be, and that is going to lead to some chaos until it gets sorted out.
I think Eric's request for a plan is quite reasonable, but these days the only plans I care much about are the ones you can make happen.
I've laid mine out in the posts A Conservative Insurgency and Guerrilla Warfare, the Left, and Getting Paid.
That's what I'm doing. I'm sure everyone else here is doing what they can as well.
Most of their constituents, however, can't actually remember who their representatives are, and aren't going to pay attention to anything but what the MSM spoon feeds them between the latest episodes of "Narcissism and Nonsense" or basketball games.
That's a bit broad. Certainly, there are quite a number of those. But guys like Barack Obama also reached a vasty number through non-standard media--the social media, the entertainment industry, and so on.
And there's guys like Ben Carson, who doesn't get a lot of press and doesn't seek it, yet he keeps showing up in the polls (I haven't seen any since Wednesday's debate) as tied or a close second for the Republican nomination. He's getting his word out without relying on the MSM.
Your demand seems to be that all of the constituents who did support it should sit down and shut up.
Not sure where that comes from. I was commenting on the bellyaching of those on the right side who "elected a Republican Congress" to do this or that, and they're upset with this or that not getting done. They didn't elect a Republican Congress; they elected their guy. And the only way they're going to get their version of this or that done is their guy can get enough other "their guys" to agree. But those whiners always miss that bit and seem to expect those other "their guys" to fall into line.
My whole thesis in this thread is what you said at the bottom: there have been at least two different visions for what the Republican Party's goals should be, and that is going to lead to some chaos until it gets sorted out. But that's going to require the party leadership--both the "establishment" and the "right side" to go off in a corner somewhere and have a meeting of the minds, and then to go to the ranks and files and have a Come to Jesus meeting with them. The Democrats take party discipline too far, but as long as the Republicans eschew it entirely, they'll never win the White House, and so their legislative goals always will be unmet.
Eric Hines
That's a bit broad.
Probably so. However, I really don't think any given politician can rely on generating buzz the way Obama did. What the politician does is only half of it; the other half is whether it catches on with the audience, and there's no way to guarantee that. A politician could do everything right and still be ignored. The MSM, of course, can change that overnight.
Not sure where that comes from. I was commenting on the bellyaching of those on the right ...
Okay, but it seemed addressed to me, and my comment didn't criticize those who opposed the shutdown in any way.
They didn't elect a Republican Congress; they elected their guy.
I like this way of putting it. That's about as succinct as I've ever heard the idea.
But that's going to require the party leadership--both the "establishment" and the "right side" to go off in a corner somewhere and have a meeting of the minds, and then to go to the ranks and files and have a Come to Jesus meeting with them.
Yeah, I agree, but I'm not sure it's possible right now. There are too many people who are too angry. I don't blame them at all for being angry, but anger can make good, intelligent people do stupid things.
What I would like to see is for the Tea Party types to refocus on the long term and start thinking of today's day-to-day politics as a matter of getting the best deal they can for the moment. In the long term, I think we need to focus on changing the culture itself and on some constitutional amendments. If we can get people to see today's politics as a holding action while we work to accomplish the long-term goals, maybe they'll be willing to listen.
What I would like to see is for the Tea Party types to refocus on the long term and start thinking of today's day-to-day politics as a matter of getting the best deal they can for the moment.
Many of them--the more thoughtful of them, say I--are. They're the ones who joined the party establishment in party governance and are pulling the party to the right. Many of them also sit in Congress already. Many of the others, what I've been calling the right side, are those who are angry enough to do stupid things. We're always going to have that, and that'll always be a mix of guys so angry they do a one-off mistake and guys too immature to get over their anger. The adults in the room are going to have to move past that.
Constitutional amendment. We've had that discussion before (I think it was with you); the amendment of a very few that I could get behind addresses term limits without putting a hard number of total years allowed.
But the Constitution only works with a President who follows it and a Judiciary that understands its role and that follows it. But it's going to take a stronger Congress than the one we have, including no small number of honest Democrats, to clean up the Judiciary. That cleanup is going to require a few impeachments of judges and Justices, guys who are not serving on good behavior because their rulings are plain violations of their oaths of office.
Eric Hines
Constitutional amendment. We've had that discussion before (I think it was with you); the amendment of a very few that I could get behind addresses term limits without putting a hard number of total years allowed.
Yes, I think it was. I'm not a fan of term limits, but IIRC your suggestion was to simply limit the number of consecutive terms someone could serve. I could agree with that.
Since then, I've learned about the Convention of States, and I like some of their ideas as well.
What I really want is an amendment that resets the Constitution to its meaning before FDR's court and later courts mangled it. I call it the "We Really Meant That" amendment. Basically, I'd like to return the Commerce and General Welfare clauses, as well as the 9th and 10th Amendments, to their pre-FDR meaning.
There are some other suggestions I'd consider, but I want to think about them more.
But the Constitution only works ...
I completely agree with that paragraph. It will also take changes throughout our culture to sustain it. To really change the government, we have to change the people.
"
What I would like to see is for the Tea Party types to refocus on the long term and start thinking of today's day-to-day politics as a matter of getting the best deal they can for the moment."
But isn't that exactly what the establishment has been doing for quite some time now? Is that how the Democrats work? Who is winning in moving the country and culture in their direction over the last couple of decades? Nothing is as convincing as success, and right now the Republican strategy of do the best you can for the moment (which seems to consist of giving up 'omly' one loaf when asked for two) doesn't seem to be working. Maybe it's time to try something else.
What I meant by "long term" was focus on getting constitutional amendments passed and changing the culture. The establishment hasn't been trying to do either of those things, and would probably fight the amendments I think are necessary. But the current system is broken.
I kind of think of it as a faucet that is turned on full blast over a full sink with the water flooding the room. Do you grab a mop and start mopping, or do you turn off the water first and then grab a mop? At this point, legislation is just mopping. We'll have plenty of that to do, but we need to fix the system first.
What do you think, though? What would you like us to try?
DoD personnel
Did I specify "DOD"? Nope. I said "essential personnel" referring to a Gummint shutdown. That's the entire Gummint--not to put too fine a point on it.
Your husband is a fine man. Did I say otherwise? Not to put too fine a point on it, but the answer is "no."
From my armchair, killing babies is VERY SIMPLE STUFF. YMMV. There comes a point in time at which consequences such as inconvenience--or worse--must be the only option. Notice that I did not bring up the national debt, the Iranian victory, or the absolutely horrific acts of SCOTUS.
Nor did I suggest that your patriotic, hard-working, and genuinely good husband simply ignore "orders" and do what he knows to be best--and screw those who think otherwise. IIRC, that's what Marines do.
There are some other suggestions I'd consider, but I want to think about them more.
Like re-establishing State appointment of Senators.
Post a Comment