The left is afraid of Ted Cruz…
…and therefore has set out to destroy him.
Cruz is their worst nightmare: a brainy and fearless conservative with impeccable intellectual Ivy League credentials and minority ethnicity to boot. But they feel fully up to the task of turning him into a villain and a loser in the eyes of the public, and perhaps they will succeed.
Sarah Palin frightened the left as well. But her accent, mannerisms, populist hobbies, idiosyncratic and somewhat convoluted syntax, evangelical Christianity, and lack of academic stardom provided much ready-made grist for their mills. Cruz is a contrast: a champion debater as a student, a Princeton graduate and Harvard-educated lawyer (Obama’s alma mater, of course) whose law student career Alan Dershowitz has said was “off-the-charts brilliant.”
And Cruz is not only a Republican but a conservative’s conservative who understands the philosophical underpinnings of the movement, and did so quite early in his life:
Cruz’s senior thesis on the separation of powers, titled “Clipping the Wings of Angels,” draws its inspiration from a passage attributed to President James Madison: “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
As if more were needed, Cruz was a primary editor of the Harvard Law Review and a founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review.
Unlike a great many Republicans (but much like Sarah Palin), Cruz is unafraid to take unpopular positions and be aggressive in opposing Democrats’ liberal platform. This has caused someone like former auto-bailout head Steven Rattner to tweet, “Ted Cruz is just Sarah Palin with a brain.”
The “just” is obligatory (as is the Palin-bashing), but it’s hard not to conclude that the prospect is somewhat daunting to the left. They are seeking Cruz’s soft underbelly (their birther spurt being the most recent example) and will not rest until they find it and neuter him politically. Here’s what especially riles them:
Democrats and liberal pundits would surely dislike Cruz no matter where he went to school, but his pedigree adds an extra element of shocked disbelief to the disdain. “Princeton and Harvard should be disgraced,” former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell exclaimed on MSNBC, as if graduating a constitutionalist conservative who rises to national prominence is a violation of the schools’ mission statements.
It almost is…
One of the left’s deepest prejudices is that its opponents are stupid, and Cruz tramples on it. Chris Hayes of MSNBC actually says he fears Cruz’s brilliance. So should congressional witnesses. At hearings, Cruz has the prosecutorial instincts of a ”¦ Harvard-trained lawyer. Watching Attorney General Eric Holder try to fend off Cruz’s questioning on the administration’s drone policy a few months ago was like seeing a mouse cornered by a very large cat.
Cruz hasn’t played by the Senate rules that freshmen should initially be seen and not heard. In fact, he joined the upper chamber with all the subtlety of a SWAT team knocking down a drug suspect’s front door.
For people who care about such things ”” almost all of them are senators ”” this is an unforgivable offense…
Cruz lacks all defensiveness about his positions, another source of annoyance to his opponents, who are used to donning the mantle of both intellectual and moral superiority.
Although Cruz’s style and presentation are very different from that of William F. Buckley, he confounds liberals in much the same way; even those liberals who say conservatives are stupid could not deny Buckley’s braininess. But Buckley was not a politician (although he once ran for NYC mayor, he didn’t expect to win), and Cruz is most definitely a politician with aspirations to higher office.
I wish him luck; he’ll need it.
Cruz doesn’t need luck. WE need it.
I hope that Cruz is not a shooting star, lighting up the sky momentarily. I mean that I hope he does not get ahead of himself. I also hope that he chooses his words carefully, because everything he says will be scrutinized under a scope. He will not benefit from the leeway for mistakes accorded an Obama, Biden or Clinton.
I would be delighted to see Cruz on the ticket in 2016 as the VP candidate with one of the GOP’s very capable Governors heading the ticket.
The “Conservative with a brain” meme is simply ludicrous. I won’t go through a litany of brilliant Conservatives, but I am sure that a number of them will spring to the mind of each reader. It may suffice to note that in today’s political climate, nearly every individual who crafted our Constitution and governmental forms would be considered conservative, with a capital “C”.
It is rather ironic that many of the people who seem to most abhor our great constitution, and denigrate the men who crafted it and those who defend it, are the very ones who have benefited most from the freedoms it guarantees. The most vocal academics, intellectuals (and pseudo-intellectuals), elected politicians, denizens of the free press, religious figures, and anti-religious ones, etc. would likely be in a different reality without it. They should look to other “free” societies, the one to our north for instance, in which laws can change at the whim of the current government, and in which speech is more much more severely limited than we are accustomed. Then look inward where attempts to put the same limitations in place are restrained only by our constitutional guarantees (when it is adhered to).
Neo-neocon,
Two comments:
But they do try (and sometimes succeed) After all, George W. Bush was a Yale and Harvard alumnus with marginally better grades than John Kerry but that didn’t matter. It was trivia to be glossed over in their attempt to paint Bush as the dumbest human being ever to walk upright.
One of the drums I’ve been beating here lately has been this issue of Progressive moral superiority. Non-Progressives always make the mistake of arguing facts with Progressives. As Ben Franklin noted you can’t argue facts with someone whose position is not based on facts to begin with.
Underlying any argument with a Progressive is their basic premise that Progressives are morally and culturally superior to their dimwitted knuckle-dragging opponents. Any time they argue, whatever the topic, their argument, even unconsciously at times, is intended to demonstrate their self-appointed superiority to your dimwitted evil position.
Thus, to be successful, any argument with any Progressive can’t focus on the subject matter of the argument but must target their fundamentally false premise of superiority. That, IMO, is their weak underbelly and that’s how to beat them at their own game.
I watched Ted Cruz during the Senate’s hearings on the “Gang of Eight’s” immigration bill. He was very impressive. Even though both Republicans and democrats were openly uneasy or hostile to the points he was making, he never flinched or gave an inch. It was obvious in those hearings that he is considered to be a troublemaker by the old guard Rs and ds. He seemed to be enjoying seeing their opposition. If we could find another 268 members of Congress with his debating abilities, education, and strong belief in the Constitution, we could turn this ship of state around . Being he is one man, and that the old guard Rs are opposed to him as well, his chances of making big changes are limited, but I don’t think he is the least bit daunted.
Go, Ted!
JJ formerly . . . ,
I do not disagree with your comment. Remember, however, that while the effect of a single individual is oftentimes limited, the real benefit is that they can become a catalyst around which things coalesce. We’ve seen the likes of that in the House with Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor. (In their case, thay seem to have withered on the branch somewhat–it may just be to early to tell.)
Cruz is exciting because we’ve not seen his likes before in the Senate [note: Neo, didn’t you recently have a post about “young Turks” becoming inured to the congressional institution?] . It makes me begin to favor a Palin senate run from Alaska. Perhaps Cruz and Palin together . . . .
The greater the threat is viewed, the greater the vitriol. Nothing scares the left as much as a genuine threat because they know in their heart of hearts, that they are in the wrong. That is why they deny facts and reason, twist the truth and lie. Someone confident of their position feels no need to obfuscate and lie. They have sold their souls to the devil and tell themselves that it is to a greater purpose but goodness relies upon the validity of its position, not subterfuge.
“Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak and that it is doing God’s service, when it is violating all his laws.” John Adams
Activists know that moving the general will of We the People is more about effective zealotry than reasonably convincing a majority.
T:
No, they do NOT try to say either Buckley or Cruz are not smart.
I didn’t say they don’t try to put down people with Ivy League credentials. Ivy League credentials do not prevent it from happening, if you speak like Bush. But with Buckley and Cruz, who are very glib in an obviously brilliant way (unlike Bush, whom I happen to think is smart but not in that same way) they can’t do say they’re unintelligent and don’t even try.
Don Carlos:
We all need it: Cruz needs it, and we need it.
Since the Hive’s script is that opponents of the Hive and its statist pseudo-liberalism are either (a) stupid, or (b) evil, if Cruz is obviously not (a), he must therefore be (b).
Geoffrey Britain,
You have touched on an interesting point. If one knows it’s wrong, then why do it and be ashamed? It’s like watching an arrested perpetrator on the local news try to hide their face from the cameras. If they’re going to be embarassed about it, why did they do it in the first place?
I have never been able to understand the mind set that permits it, and yet I’m sure that most of us do it to some extent in our own lives. Is is a drive to accomodate the base elements of human nature? Is this our “original sin”? As Katherine Hepburn admonishes Humphrey Bogart in The African Queen, this human nature is what we were put on this earth to rise above.
JJ etc: you beat me to it. Ted Cruz’s biggest enemy is fat-face Karl Rove. The recent blow up over is citizenship status has his finger prints all over it.
If you watch uncle Karl when he is asked about the rogue Republican’s stance on immigration reform, defunding Obamacare, and other wedge issues, you will notice a lot of irritation — twitching around the eyes, talking fast and furious, and waiving around the idiot dry erase board to illustrate his “internal polling” that supports his positions.
Rove threw everything at Cruz here in the Texas senate race, promoting Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, and could not make any headway – Cruz was unruffled and rose above the personal attacks, stuck to the issues, and never needed to counter with anything personal. He simply and fearlessly stated the record of his opponent, backed it up with facts, and won. Dewhurst became more and more desperate near the end of the election cycle, essentially calling Cruz a conspirator with the Chinese government, intent on undermining US interests. It was relentless.
Rove is not about to give up – he takes this personally, and you can expect him to be the Democrats’ best friend if Cruz runs for president. He’s subtly and not so subtly running around now undermining Cruz and his positions.
I can’t say enough good things about Ted Cruz, nor can I express the contempt I have for Rove and what he stands for as a Republican fund raiser and king-maker. Rove’s vision of Republican leadership is exactly the same as his Democrat opponents; the difference being it’s Rove and his hand-picked bobos are at the head of the table fleecing the public and expanding government to suit their interests. He’s a world class weasel who will do whatever it takes to undermine a conservative or any other candidate that isn’t in his back pocket.
Neo-neocon,
“. . . Buckley and Cruz, . . . are very glib in an obviously brilliant way. . . .”
I recognize the distinction you’re making. The implication here is that presentation is everything. One can be intelligent, but whether one is acknowledged as so depends upon the manner is which one speaks (presents ones-self). I would not disagree with that at all. It falls into my own perception that it is the appearance rather than the substance that motivates the left: the appearance of equality; the appearance of intelligence (both by credentials and by subscribing to the approved philosophy; the appearamce that we are not under terrorist attack (“man-cause disasters), etc.
It also explains why the left wishes to elect the first black president and the first female president. It matters not that neither has any prior accomplishments to speak of, it’s only important for the sake of appearances.
Neo-neocon,
It also explains why all the Dems jumped on board with Obama’s candidacy. Joe Biden had it right with his comment about an “articulate black man.”
“We all need it [luck]: Cruz needs it, and we need it.”
Mark my words. Cruz will be subjected to one of the most blistering attacks you’ve ever seen in the coming year or two, partly from the Republican establishment who don’t cotton to this principled, uppity smart-guy, but mostly from every outlet of the MSM, left politicians and the popular culture.
If he has any weaknesses or has ever done anything slightly wrong, they’ll all hammer away at him until his pubic image becomes Evil Incarnate, an idiot or both. And if they have nothing to work with, they’ll just make something up. Take note a year from now at how unacceptable it is to support Cruz, at how firmly established is the “fact” that he is just a Bad Man.
Please. Men and women like Cruz need more than luck. They need our support–on the internet, in political conversations, wherever.
The Demos have had two basic attacks on Pubs for the last 60 years: stupid or evil. According to the Demos, the following are stupid: Ike, Reagan, Dubya, Sarah Palin. The Demos couldn’t say Nixon was stupid, so they called him evil. The Demos will try to label Ted Cruz as evil.
neo-neocon wrote:
“But with Buckley and Cruz, who are very glib in an obviously brilliant way…”
T wrote:
“One can be intelligent, but whether one is acknowledged as so depends upon the manner is which one speaks…”
The left seems to value a quick glibness over all, especially if it is salted with sophisticated language and/or academic-style jargon. Even the most brilliant people will immediately be dismissed by the left as dolts if their gems of wisdom are annunciated slowly and deliberately, in clear, plain language.
I’m a conservative, but I find Cruz’s prosecutorial style/persona very off-putting. Case in point was his unnecessarily rude questioning of Dianne Feinstein several months ago. But then maybe I’m just weird because I actually like her on some things, like national security.
Anyway, I think even without the left’s, and Rove’s, demonizing him, Cruz is not going to click with most folks.
Ann,
I don’t think one can be hard hitting without being perceived of in some circles as being rude. One cannot play nice with adversaries who are willing to fight in the gutters.
Politics is hardball. When the left plays hardball they are described as passionate and committed. When the right plays hardball they are described as rude, intractable and obstructionist. The right must lay claim to “passionate and committed” and charges of “rude,” especially when they come from the same side of the aisle, just obscure the passion committment we wish more conservatives would bring to the table.
A congressional hearing is not the place for “nice.” For “nice” there are always state dinners and backyard barbeques. Then again, I supported Newt Gingrich for precisely this reason, his personal baggage notwithstanding.
Ann wrote:
“I’m a conservative, but I find Cruz’s prosecutorial style/persona very off-putting. Case in point was his unnecessarily rude questioning of Dianne Feinstein several months ago.
Judge for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYI3MEhegvQ
I detect a tiny bit of condescension in Cruz’s lecturing manner, but his tone is pretty flat and polite. Feinstein gets quite defensive about it, but IMHO Cruz hit on the exact nub of the matter: does Feinstein (and other Dems) really understand and appreciate the fact that their power is limited by the Constitution? I don’t know how one can forcefully oppose someone on the left and be more polite and soft-spoken than Cruz in this instance.
A large part of what did it for me, I think, was when he switched from addressing her in the second person “you” to third person “the senator” and “she”. Why did he do that? It objectified her.
Hopefully, just hopefully, things are such a mess that some folks are starting to pay attention.
I just had a coversation with a die-hard liberal, a never vote anyone who isn’t a Democrat liberal, and was an Obama supporter. However, she (without any prompting from me) said “how much more of this (referring to the econmic situation) can we take, how many more years of Obama?”
She also mentioned how pissed off she was at the shooting of the Australian in OK and not one peep from Obama. (color me shocked! She never pays attention to the news)
So, after years of drought, maybe many are looking for rain and will see through the left’s nonsense?
Ann, I took the reason he addressed her as “the senior senator from California” is to keep the discussion off a personal level. He was making a point of law. Feinstein, in the usual liberal fashion when they have no rational answer, resorted to the ad hominem attack.
I deal with this all the time at the college level when talking about climate. I present facts, rational arguments, and make sure I NEVER bring anything personal into my statements. And, right on cue, the response is inevitably, “I CARE about the planet while YOU are an awful person who wants to destroy the planet!”
Ann, that’s how Senators speak to each other in debate. The honorable Senator from Ohio is proposing to take the food out of the mouths of starving children…. Apparently the Marines operate under a similar system as long as you stand at attention and use Sir when addressing a superior. It’s a way of delivering sharp criticism without making it personal.
physicsguy, 4:55 pm —
Yes. I found myself patiently explaining to a friend once, that there is a need to carefully distinguish between (a) global warming, (b) global warming that is the result of human activity, and (c) reasonable measures to ensure a healthy atmosphere.
After a couple of repetitions over the months, it sunk in. Those concepts *are* different, of course. But for far too many people, one such concept seeps seamlessly into the others, and it all ends up as one big fat emotional blob of gushing “caring” devoid of careful, practical *thinking*.
“Cruz lacks all defensiveness about his positions….”
This.
Like a soaking, plopping rain, after a dust dry drought.
We need to be a tad careful around Ann. She uses words and thoughts as if on the Left: “It objectified her”. Typical faculty lounge talk, that.
“I actually like her on some things, like national security.” Ann
You are gravely mistaken in presuming that Sen. Feinstein actually cares about our National Security. Over the past 2.5 years:
She voted against requiring the Completion of the Fence Along the United States-Mexico Border
She voted against requiring that the US-VISIT System be Established at Every Port of Entry
She voted against prohibiting the United States From Entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (which would gut the 2nd amendment)
She voted against requiring the President to submit to Congress a report that provides a plan for the “safe, orderly, and expeditious redeployment” of Armed Forces and non-Afghan military contractors from Afghanistan
She voted against prohibiting the Appointment of Presidential “Czars” Without Senate Approval
She voted against expanding oil and gas drilling in United States coastal waters. (keeps us dependent on foreign oil)
She voted against requiring Disclosure of Financial Transactions by Executive Branch Employees
She voted for removing Provisions Requiring Military Custody of al-Qaeda Suspects
She voted for the Treaty with Russia to Reduce and Limit Offensive Arms (we will have less nuclear arms than Russia and China combined)
She voted Yes for:
Nomination of John Brennan to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
Nomination of Charles Timothy Hagel to be Secretary of Defense
She voted for prohibiting the Armed Forces of the United States from detaining a non-citizen in military custody under the law of war, if the they were captured within the borders of the United States
She voted for limits on Firearm Magazine Capacity (outlawing most magazines)
She sponsored:
Establishes Regulations for Assault Weapons
(assault weapons being defined as anything beyond a revolver or single shot rifle/shotgun)
She’s in favor of civilian courts prosecuting:
A member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an affiliated entity; or A participant of a plot to plan or carry out an attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
I realize there can be provisions in a bill that preclude acceptance of the bill but if you don’t see a pattern here, I don’t know what more to say.
that’s how Senators speak to each other in debate
If it’s an actual debate, yes, but this was a hearing, and I don’t think hearings follow debate rules.
And Cruz switched from second person to third person, which made it very noticeable. Also, Feinstein did not address him in the third person, again making it very noticeable.
This may seem to be silly, emotional stuff, but it influences people and we’d be foolhardy to dismiss it.
Yep, Don Carlos, I’m guilty of using a word loved by the left. But then so is National Review Online; see here and here.
Seems a shame to limit a perfectly good word to use by only those in the faculty lounge.
“This may seem to be silly, emotional stuff . . . .”
Indeed it is, right along with the case of the vapors that it engenders.
“Seems a shame to limit a perfectly good word . . .”
It’s not a perfectly good word. Its psychobabble from the Victimology Handbook.
Never mind the fact that some people need to be “objectified”: oath breakers, traitors, etc.
Feinstein, like most of the people in congress, trample on the Constitution regularly: oath breakers.
Identify them, objectify them (dare I say…target?), run them out of office. Apply tar and feathers…liberally.
I guess you forgot about the left calling Reagan ‘Ronnie Ray-gun’. Reagan was such a threat to them that, to them, Reagan was both stupid and evil, which when you think about it, is a pretty neat trick. Because it was a trick, misdirection, like any half-decent magician. I also think Reagan’s humor had a lot to do with him winning. “I paid for this microphone!”
——–
Ann,
I don’t call the Senior Senator from California Diane Frankenstein for nothing.
——-
Geoffrey Britain,
Good stuff! Nice quickie synopsis of that evil wench from San Fran Sicko, just as Pelousy is from San Fran Sicko. Turds of a feather. . .
Cruz, Palin, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Rubio, whomever….
Not destroyed by the Left so much as the cowardly Right.
We were told – they swore up and down on us – that McCain was the man. Our only chance!!!!! Same with Romney.
If the current crowd of cowardly Rs had held sway in 1980, Bush would have been nominated over the dangerous and ridiculous Reagan – and he would have lost.
The people who tell us what is what are exactly the people not to listen to. In actual fact they know nothing.
One interesting tidbit that I picked up in the Daily Beast hit piece on “creepy” Ted and his paisley bathrobe was the fact that his mentor at Princeton was Robert George. Even more points in his favor, IMO.
Cruz is interesting and clearly brilliant but I do wonder about his “likeability” factor. Regardless of what the Left does to him, it’s an important factor and necessary for him to go the distance.
Cruz was not adequately obsequious to my Senator; i.e. Diane Feinstein? Well, we have something in common.
Ann, if you believe that Diane Feinstein is strong on defense, then you may believe that John Kerry was a war hero.
Hey, I never said Feinstein was perfect, but unlike many liberals, she gets the fact that terrorism is a real and present danger.
Some other stuff she’s done that has not made her a favorite with liberals:
“She supports capital punishment, saying the Boston Marathon bombings should be prosecuted as a death penalty case. She cast votes to sustain the Iraq war until its later stages and voted to confirm Bush cabinet and judicial nominees from her position on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Her Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee often had no idea when she would vote against them. Her support for Mr. Bush’s nominee for attorney general in 2007, Michael B. Mukasey, prompted some in the California Democratic Party to try to censure her.”
Sarah Palin posted a comment and picture on Face Book after midnight here in Texas and in 3 minutes she already had 1,332 likes, 58 comments, and 30 shares-LOL. Go Sarah, go!
Moles and trolls [sigh].
For my fellow patriots: I can heartily recommend a little book I found many years ago, titled Nasty People: How to Deal With Them Without Becoming One of Them.
Gist — never let a bully put you on the back foot, on the defensive. Always attack HIM, HIS weaknesses, HIS rotten premises, HIS lies. And never, never, never, never, never give in.
I’ve watched the Leftoids and the Liberal Asshats run this game on conservatives and Republicans so often it makes me want to scream: almost always, the conservative patriot type goes into a defensive crouch or runs all over the court trying to swat back crazy balls the Leftoid sends over the net in all directions. So who controls the game? THEY do. And they have this down to a frickin’ science.
I agree about Karl Rove. He was the poltroon who advised Bush not to defend himself against any attacks — or go on the attack himself. Both overlooked the teeny little detail that Bush, as our President, stood for America: not defending his actions as President meant not defending America. (This no longer obtains with Hussein Obama, who so clearly loathes America that he doesn’t stand for her in any real way).
Footnote: If you haven’t ever seen the moving and powerful James Cagney film The Gallant Hours, please do check it out. Cagney plays Admiral “Bull” Halsey, and it’s a view of the most desperate days of our Pacific campaign from an unusual angle — the admiral’s POV.
Wretchard at The Belmont Club posted this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2wye37sZiQ
The establishment Republicans have been playing a lot of ‘me to’ in response to the Democrats since FDR. The effectiveness of the system FDR introduced – aka the Blue Model – is reaching its use by date, but sadly only a few Republicans have really understood that the era is over and that it is down the conservatives to invent the future. The Democrats are too busy defending the status quo to notice that their vision of the future has turned into Detroit. Cruz is looking like he is out there leading. Great. I also notice that Rubio was considered a Tea Party candidate when he was doing his David and Goliath thing with Governor Crist. Now I often see him referred to as a mainstream Republican. There will be lot of this kind of repositioning within Republican ranks. Christie, Jindal, Walker et al. But I think it will take a long time before a coherent plan and leadership emerges. If there is a big crisis it will accelerate the process. Without a crisis we could get 8 years of Hilary. Whenever, I hope Cruz or someone like him is there when we really need them.
My only cautionary concern about Cruz is that people like Hugh Hewitt referred to Mitt Romney as “incandescently bright”. Well that bulb burned pretty dimly in the 2012 election. So Cruz will have to demonstrate some real political skills or ruthlessness to make him the top candidate.
An idea that has come to me:
The left uses the race card to shut down the right and everyone else so why don’t GOPers/conservatives pick one black on white crime each week, that’s only 52 per year, highlight it, promote it on talk radio.
A regular drumbeat of public acknowledgement of the massive black on white crime wave in the country would be I think an effective push back to the lefts phony chants of racist, racist, racist.
No need to hide Cruz’s undergraduate and Harvard Law grades.
As for Senator Feinstein, she “looks good” against her loathsome CA senate colleague — Barbara Boxer — not to mention Senators Reid and Durbin, among others.
Even if Cruz doesn’t get destroyed absolutely, it just means that to acquire power in the US, you need to graduate from a Leftist controlled institute. Which already favors Leftist concepts and is not a particularly optimistic assessment for a country’s future rulers.
As I mentioned in the 2008 elections, it doesn’t matter to me who acquires leadership and power over the United States of America. Whether it’s Palin or someone else, doesn’t matter to me.
All that matters to me is that the person with the power has the ruthlessness and will to destroy the Left.
That is all. Policies, politics, platforms? None of that matters. Because none of that will matter in the 2nd US Civil War.
“As for Senator Feinstein, she “looks good” against her loathsome CA senate colleague – Barbara Boxer – not to mention Senators Reid and Durbin, among others.”
That’s the most that can be said for her at this point. I don’t think Ann is entirely wrong about her, but sadly like the rest of the Democratic party Feinstein has mostly assimilated to the “Hive”. If you resist you will get drummed out of the party (e. g. Joe Lieberman).
“According to the Demos, the following are stupid: Ike, Reagan, Dubya, Sarah Palin”
No, like Reagan Palin is stupid *and* evil (to them, not me!!).
Feinstein and others like her, make a lot of money via special deals from their Senate committee influence and intel.
America didn’t care about it before. I doubt Americans will care about it when Feinstein uses that money to kidnap, execute, and torture their children to death either. They’ll just blame it on blacks, whites, Palin, or Cruz.
1. I posted the following at LI back on January 7th:
Cruz is the only person who comes to mind who could turn American conservatism back into a governing coalition. My concern is whether conservative politics and the country have gone past a point of no return. Case in point:
2. Ann said ‘objectified’?! The horror! The horror!
And here I was thinking that the language police were all on the PC Left…
Having said the above, I note that Susana Martinez gave a terrific speech at the Republican convention. Nowadays she is prudently staying under the national radar, but if she gets reelected by a landslide in 2014—especially if the rest of her party continues to blow races they should win—, she won’t be under the radar anymore.
I just posted a piece on Ted Cruz. I invite readers of neoneocon to visit Pesky Truth and check out the post, “Who is Ted Cruz … Really?”
Here’s a link: http://peskytruth.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/who-is-ted-cruz-really/
BTW, I’m a Texas, voted for Ted, and sincerely hope to vote for him in 2016.