On throwing Ted Cruz under the bus
Ted Cruz isn’t perfect and wasn’t perfect even before he made his remarks about the January 6th defendants being “terrorists.” But he’s long been one of the most consistently conservative members of Congress. He’s also unusually smart, and rarely makes an error when he speaks. That’s probably one of the reasons why so many on the right seem unable to forgive him for this statement and are assuming it indicates some nefarious motive on his part.
I’m not one of those people, though. His statement took his standing down a notch in my eyes, but it didn’t invalidate his lengthy record and to me it’s at least plausible that his explanation is true: that he was using a term he’s used for many years to describe people who attack police, no matter what their politics, and by no means did he mean all the January 6th defendants.
Rejection of Cruz for his statement is the sort of thing I’ve come to expect from a lot of people on the right, though. It seems to me to be a zero tolerance policy that sometimes backfires and leads to Democrat victory and some very bad outcomes. I do believe that “the perfect is often the enemy of the good.”
So, what has Cruz previously said on these subjects? I did a bit of research, and here are some statements from Cruz last August about the long-term imprisonment of the January 6th defendants:
Republican Senator Ted Cruz is under fire for arguing that some participants in the Capitol riot should be spared prosecution.
Mr. Cruz told HuffPost that people who “assaulted a police officer” should spend “a long, long time in jail”, but balked at criminal charges for participants who entered the Capitol but did not harm anyone.
“If, on the other hand, the Biden administration is targeting and persecuting people for exercising political speech that is nonviolent and simply expressing their peaceful support for a political party different from that in power, that is not the purpose of our criminal justice system,” he added.
There’s also this letter from Cruz to Merrick Garland:
In June, Mr Cruz and Senator Tommy Tuberville sent a letter to US Attorney General Merrick Garland complaining that Capitol rioters are facing harsher treatment than people who protested during the George Floyd demonstrations in 2020.
“DOJ’s apparent unwillingness to punish these individuals who allegedly committed crimes during the spring and summer 2020 protests stands in stark contrast to the harsher treatment of the individuals charged in connection with the January 6, 2021 breach of the US Capitol,” the duo wrote.
Also, from the same article (which is very anti-Cruz in the usual manner of the MSM):
Mr Cruz and many of his Republican colleagues have repeatedly tried to downplay the insurrection on 6 January. The senator has a vested interest in doing so, as he led the charge to reject the electoral ballot count the day the riot occurred.
Cruz was one of the main members of Congress defending the challenge to the 2020 election. He also voted against the Jan 6th commission’s establishment.
And what of Cruz’s previous use of the term “terrorist” to describe those who attack police? Well, there’s this from August of 2020 during the BLM/Antifa riots:
‘What you and I don’t have the right to do is to hurt somebody else, to physically assault someone else, to firebomb police cars, to loot and destroy a small business, to murder a police officer and sadly we’ve seen all of that in riots across our country.’
As well as blaming the violence on Antifa, Cruz also laid into Black Lives Matter organizers who he said are ‘pursuing a radical agenda’.
‘These are violent leftists, many of them are anarchists, some of them are affiliated with Antifa the national terrorist organization, some are affiliated with the group called Black Lives Matter which is founded by and is run by open Marxists – people who are calling for a Marxist government in the United States,’ he said.
‘We’re seeing radicals whose objective is what’s going on in Portland every night – they’re assaulting the federal courthouse and trying to burn it down.’…
‘The federal police officers are doing their job of stopping terrorists burning the courthouse to the ground,’ Cruz insisted….
[Many Democrats have made] the very unfortunate political determination that…given the choice between standing with innocent Americans or violent terrorists seeking to hurt their fellow citizens, to date too many of them have stood with terrorists.’
Last March, when Cruz was questioning FBI director Wray, Cruz said this:
In the past year, we have seen massive rioting and violence as extremists, many of them leftist extremists, took to the streets across the country, in just two weeks, at the end of May and early June, over 700 law enforcement officers were injured. Looking at all of 2020, over 14,000 people had been arrested in 49 cities, and at least 25 people have died in the violence. And it’s estimated that the property damages from these riots could exceed $2 billion. What is the FBI doing to counter this ongoing pattern of domestic terrorism?
Also, because Cruz was one of the people heading up the legal procedural challenges to the certification of the electoral votes on January 6th, 2021, as such he drew virulent criticism both before and after the January 6th demonstrations and violence:
U.S. Congressman Joaquin Castro and Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa both said on Wednesday that Cruz should resign…
“I think that’s what it was intended to be: a coup,” he said. “This is an effort by people — who were being encouraged by the President of the United States, and people like Ted Cruz — to take the law into their own hands, and to force the declaration of Donald Trump to be the president of the United States, when he lost the election, when the people in the United States voted by almost 8 million votes to kick him out of office.”
He said Cruz should resign, and the Republican Party should take steps to restore trust in American democracy.
Not that Cruz ever considered resigning, but he probably has extra reason for being angry at the demonstrators/protestors who got out of hand and committed violent acts on January 6th, because he was blamed for it, along with Trump.
I think that, not only did Cruz make an error in calling the January 6th defendants “terrorists,” but I also think that Cruz’s previous remarks defending the non-violent among them haven’t been as strong as I would have liked. But he did defend them previously, and Cruz’s nature has never been to be a firebrand.
My opinion about Cruz even prior to these recent remarks of his is that he never was going to become president. He simply doesn’t have the personality. He’s smart and he can actually be very humorous, but he’s stiff – and the lawyer in him is always in the forefront. Most people don’t warm to him for those reasons, and I think there are better Republican contenders for 2024.
But I’m not turning on him, either; not for this. I think that would be wrong, given his history. He’s been one of the better GOP senators for a long time.
Neo, I agree with your assessment. Actually Cruz was in my top tier choices for 2020. I really don’t the purest that have to have someone vote their way 100%. Some critics of the SC are this way.
Wonder how he would be as AG if a Rep should win in 2024?
I think part of the backlash against Cruz is that there are so few GOPers who are willing to take on the Left/Ds, and Cruz seems to be one of them. So it’s a more extreme disappointment when it appears he’s crossed over to the dark side. The Left/Ds all march in lockstep, and when one yells, they all yell the same thing. Too many squishes on the GOP side.
He definitely went far down in my view, and his Tucker interview was very CMA. He could redeem himself, but only if his actions are what I expect for a fighter against the Left. I’m looking at him with much more skepticism that before.
I’m pretty sure he used the term “terrorist attack” way back in January 2021 to describe the events of January 6th. So it’s not an error in the sense of misspeaking. I agree he’s been a stalwart conservative voice, but this was a pretty big year-long own goal. And regarding the comments to Huff Post about prisoners: Those are comments to a reporter, what difference can that make? I realize there may not be much as the minority party that Republicans can do, but they ought to be screaming to the rooftops about this, not just making comments to reporters that one probably has to Google to find.
It’s not that he should be completely shunned, but he’s no longer presidential material. We need a fighter in there, not someone who will fold on issues like these.
be better, ted
you’ve had a year to find out the truth, about this delta house jamboree, that was dialed up to eleven
the only thing that surprised me is he used a maga sympathetic site, truth gazette, to make this statement
We could do way worse than Ted Cruz for President.
And we almost certainly will.
An unforced error; he’s smart enough to learn from this and he will recover.
Sen Cruz is more respected than loved, both in the Senate and around Texas, but his likely opponent if he does win the 2024 R nomination, VP Harris, is neither loved nor respected anywhere except possibly in her own house.
There is hope.
I tend to agree about Cruz. I think he misspoke about the Jan 6 event being “terrorism.” Maybe a rare lapse in judgement. He and others also dropped any opposition to the electoral count once the riot occurred.
I am more contemptuous of McCarthy, the Minority Leader in the House. He has ignored the political prisoners and made one weak gesture about appointing members to the “Commission.” He is a disgrace. I am remembering those who did visit the prisoners. Any political contributions I make will go to them.
I finished Julie Kelly’s book, “January 6.”
The Cruz episode highlights the differences betwixt conservatives and demonkrats.
When a demonkrat says something that is forbidden, the dem response is either silence – they offer no criticism – or they blame some outside force, like a Trump or climate change.
Here Cruz says something forbidden and many conservatives jump all over him, rightfully so or otherwise.
Just goes to show why demonkrats have been running the show since 1933; they stick together, mostly, and refrain from criticizing their fellow party members.
They do their best to portray a united front regardless of the subject.
They do anything and everything to retain or gain power.
They are just superior politicians than the republicans (and this is not a compliment).
Neo again provides another, measured, temperate, and intelligent assessment.
Good comments too.
I said my peace in the previous thread, although I found one big typo rereading it. Neo’s done a great job here providing context.
I agree with Neo on this, and I’m not ready to stamp “cancel” on Cruz over this one comment, especially since he has applied it only to those who attacked police.
Interesting thought about Cruz as Attorney General, and I think he’d be outstanding on the Supreme Court.
I’ll cast a ballot for Cruz if he’s on it, as a rule. His conduct here is a disappointment.
The trouble with Cruz is that he’s not yet taken the path to the Presidency. A few years in Congress is satisfactory. However, you need to have some serious time in executive positions. I believe he had a two digit staff when he was solicitor-general of Texas, so he’s not there yet.
I am more contemptuous of McCarthy, the Minority Leader in the House.
He was born in 1965 and has been on the payroll of legislative bodies – first as staff, then as member – since 1987. He has no technae. He shares digs with public opinion grifter Frank Luntz. This is the man House Republicans want in charge, after having had Paul Ryan, John [hic] Boehner, and Dennis [graft] Hastert in charge. The problem, really, is that the House Republican caucus is a collecting pool of tools. And they likely compare favorably to the Senate Republican caucus. This is the Fredocon Donorist Party.
Been a backer of Ted a long time, voted for him in Pa primary over DJT though as soon as he backed out became a Trump guy through and through. It was a unforced error, he is still better than most so wonder where he got that slip up from. He would still be better candidate than most but as for President again I would want other options.
For me it’s not whether Ted Cruz is a reliable Senate R. It’s is he one of the lizards? For the Lizard People D vs R is far less significant than insider-outsider. Calling the January 6 protesters “terrorists” is for some folks a tell that the speaker is a lizard. I think the lizards were genuinely terrified by January 6 but humans should not have been.
January 6 aside, calling someone “terrorist” because they “attack police, no matter what their politics” is in my book pretty disturbing, and I don’t approve of pet interpretations of commonly used words. “Terrorism” like “traitor” and “racist”
is pretty loaded speech and should be used sparingly.
“…The people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”
“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”
“I did,” said Ford. “It is.”
“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t people get rid of the lizards?”
“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”
“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”
“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”
“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”
“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.”
I touched on this in today’s wrap up Strange Daze on my page by including the following observation:
Ted Cruz goes on Tucker to try to walk back his words about January 6 – Regardless of my personal feelings about the merits of Cruz’s defense, in the unlikely event that 2024 boils down to a fight between whatever Democrat party candidate and Ted Cruz, I’m voting for Cruz. At the end of the day, I’m not going to be stupid enough to turn my back on a highly intelligent man who has a consistently conservative voting record.
https://americandigest.org/strange-daze-the-cream-of-supreme/
If he didn’t realize how that would play in Peoria, he’s not half as smart as we might think. The man parses words for fun, he knew, or should have known how it would be received.
“Neo again provides another, measured, temperate, and intelligent assessment.”
Of course… a main strength in this time at this point but, should things get sparky, you would do well to remember Jerry Rubin: “If you want to have a revolution you have to do revolting things.”
I don’t know if it’s changed my opinion of Cruz, I wasn’t particularly surprised he said it.
My point was, and still is: Cruz did not misspeak. Ted Cruz does not misspeak on the floor of the Senate. I don’t know if his reasons were for ill or good regarding alignment with my views, but I do not believe it was a mistake on his part.
Believing that, his refusing to own his words afterwards and insisting it was a mistake has knocked him down a peg with me.
But he’s a politician by profession. Anyone who puts his or her complete trust in politicians will end up being disappointed. Often.
His statements (plural) that the 1/6/21 protest was a “violent terrorist attack” are not just out of step with the base but also with reality. Senators, along with most other government officials, are paid a lot of money (and rake in a lot of money for themselves as well in the process). They should make sense. They should not issue clearly stupid statements. They should not talk out of both sides of their mouths. We are entitled to and SHOULD insist on sensible rhetoric and question statements that do not make sense without it potentially being viewed as an attack.
One thing I cannot understand about professed Constitutionalists like Cruz and Rand Paul:
99.9% of questions asked in Presidential debates have nothing to do with the office of the President or his or her role as defined by the Constitution.
Yet, in Presidential debates Cruz and Paul go along with the charade. Why don’t they use debates as an opportunity to highlight the ignorance of the Press while educating American voters?
The correct answer to most every question I have ever seen asked in a Presidential debate is: “That’s not the Chief Executive’s job.” Say that, and then ask the debate moderator to explain why he or she asked the question.
I voted for Cruz in the 2016 primary. I’ve donated to his campaigns (and I’m not from TX). I’m not a Cruz hater. I see this most recent faux pas as being an example of how all-encompassing – and dangerous – the DC bubble can be. Things that are taken as givens and presumptions inside the DC bubble just do not make sense when exposed to the light of day.
Pingback:Links and Comments | Rockport Conservatives
So, if it is eventually proven that the principal members of those instigating the crowd swarm into the Capitol building were FBI sponsored agent provocateurs, or that some of those hammering away at glass were Antifa sympathizing types engaging in the same kind of chaos inducing activity, what would their actions be called?
Yes Emo retards in fair numbers among the Trump supporters may have been swept along; but I think that analysis so far has made a plausible case that the disorder was precipitated by those intending to use the rally in order to opportunistically produce a chaotic and potentially violent and politically destabilizing event: in order to, per classic terrorist theory, provoke repression and then further reactions to it.
It is a credit to the rank and file Trump supporters that those exhorting the crowd and breaking the glass were largely unsuccessful.
Whether their activities, if proven, fits your definition of terrorism, is another matter.
DNW,
I don’t think “terrorism” is the correct word for what you describe.
Our CIA calls that method a “color revolution” and is quite experienced and practiced in carrying them out.
Being “one of the better senators” is now a saving grace in the GOP. Sad.
I found the Senate race between “Cruz” and “ Beto” to be amusing in one regard. On the one hand you had a part Cuban guy with a English nickname and a white guy with a Spanish nickname…. Rafael Edward “ Ted” Cruz verses Robert Francis “ Beto” O’Rourke.
I would still vote for Ted for Senate.
I do think he may actually have a birth certificate problem for President. I say that even though I voted for him in the primary over Trump.
I wish our current governor, Abbot, would take the other Texas Senate seat and let Allen West take the governorship of Texas.
Rufus; I agree that Cruz didn’t misspeak, and the fact that I’ve heard him say similar things previously tells me he didn’t. He did waffle quite a bit on Tucker, which Tucker rightfully called him on. I think when Cruz loses control of a situation, he handles it badly, as we also saw at the 2016 GOP convention.
My sense of it all is exactly like IRA Darth Aggie; he should have known how it would be received and that he didn’t does not bode well for him. Or as AMartel notes, a sign of the DC bubble. His most recent podcasts certainly sounded more like the DC bubble marketing K-street nonsense and were already turning me off. I think is very fair to say Cruz is pretentious. I suspect I wasn’t alone in unsubscribing and I suspect that was the fastest poll number drop Cruz has seen, thus he jumped on Tucker’s show.
I’m not a big fan of most of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate but I think it’s not nothing that when Cruz was left as the only option to stop Trump, his fellow Senators suddenly found Trump much less objectionable. And that’s when pretty much everyone believed nominating Trump was a sure bet to lose in 2016 and potentially in catastrophic fashion.
His refusal to endorse Trump during his speech at the 2016 RNC also says a lot about Cruz’ intelligence and judgment.
Mike
A Constitutional lawyer of Cruz’s caliber does not ‘misspeak’ when delivering prepared remarks in the Senate. He used the term “violent terrorist attack” twice, which indicates knowing intentionality. Not before, in between or immediately after did he clarify his accusation.
There was nothing in those remarks to contest with the democrat’s characterization of the Jan. 6th protestors as terrorists. Anyone not intimately familar with Cruz’s prior comments would naturally conclude that he was agreeing with the democrat’s characterization, as there was no indication otherwise.
Nor did I find his appearance on Carlson’s show persuasive.
That would be bad enough but he has yet to explain his recent actions in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Cruz’s objections to 30 of Biden’s radical judicial nominees has held up a vote on the Senate floor. Late at night, he dropped those objections and allowed those nominations to proceed to the Senate floor, where they are likely to pass. What more important function might Sen. Cruz have in the Senate Judiciary Committee than blocking radical nominees?
Reportedly, he did so in exchange (at least ostensibly) for a ‘promise’ by the Democrats to be allowed to speak on the Euro / Russian Pipeline. To imagine that matches in importance the integrity of our judicial system mocks credulity.
The only plausible rationale that I have seen advanced is that he actually did so at the bidding of his natural gas donors.
A politician serving the interests of their donors is certainly understandable. But when that service renders a profound disservice to the country’s interests, it calls into question that Senator’s integrity.
Those two incidents alone, one in prepared remarks and the other through his actions cast grave doubt in my mind regarding Sen. Cruz. I cannot but conclude that he’s a conservative politician and politician’s ‘sails’ tack as the winds blow.
Finally there is his actions immediately following the Jan 6th events where he immediately dropped his objections to the Senate voting upon the election. If his concerns were valid and not political posturing… then whatever disruption occurred did not invalidate his concerns about the indications of widespread electoral fraud.
Not quite a RINO but not a man to stand his ground when principle is threatened by pragmatic concerns. Senators, due to the importance of their job, stand elevated above the common man. The price they pay for that exalted position is to have an obligation to do what’s right, especially when it will personally cost them.
That they are not held accountable is why we have the government we have for “we have met the enemy and he is us”.
I disliked about 30% of the things Trump did and said, I was glad to vote for Trump over Clinton without hesitation because I wanted Supreme Court appointments and then when Trump did a reasonable job about 2/3 of the time I was happy. Same thing with Cruz who I have voted for numerous times here in Texas and disliked a lot of the things he did yet was glad to have him on board doing what he does. I will support a whole slate of conservatives who make decent decisions most of the time and put up with their mistakes and accept that’s life.
There is certainly no shortage of Republican politicians willing to recite whatever the latest MSM/Democrat talking points on any number of “sensitive” topics, Including 1/6 and the integrity of the 2020 election. This is why what Cruz said is so disappointing and why what Ron DeSantis said is so refreshing.
I agree that Cruz doesn’t have the type of personality that translates into presidential popularity so I don’t think this really has that much impact on his future ambitions. But there are so few voices willing to stand up to the mob that it is disheartening to see someone like Cruz be so obviously out of touch.
Cruz is not a likable person. He’s abrasive and arrogant. He also stood in the breach when the “gang of eight” tried to shove immigration reform (including amnesty) through the Senate. I watched some of that on C-SPAN, and even though I agreed with Cruz, I found him to be grating and a bit nasty. Just what was needed to stop the gang of eight, though. 🙂
I doubt he has many close friends in the Senate.
It shocked me when he said the word terrorists, because it played right into the Dems hands. He’s smart, he crafts his words, he should m have known that would go over like a t*rd in a punch bowl. Or did he? I don’t know. It showed some grit to go on Tucker’s show and eat some crow. It’s not easy for a pol to admit they misspoke and apologize. Especially someone as smart and confident as Cruiz is.
But he’s human. Smart as he is, he made a big mistake. Like everyone else here, I would vote for him over any Democrat anytime. If it’s Cruz against DeSantis or Trump…………..well that’s another issue.
Obviously vote for him if the other choice is a Democrat.
But there must be severe and permanent consequences for his gutless, treacherous trimming.
This kind of thing has gone on for too long already and will go on forever unless the people doing it are punished. As an example to others contemplating the same as much as anything.
Yes, there’s a danger of out-of-control purity spiraling… but it’s less than the risk of being defeated piecemeal through defections and triangulations and salami-slicing.
There is a whole lot of dissapointment on both the left and the right because most all of the decent folks know, in their hearts, they know the stuff going on is not good for our nation. We are in strange waters with lots of shoals, reefs and bad charts and we are, at this time just trying to make a little bit of headway without going aground or ripping the bottom out of this ship of state. I am too old and tired to tell anyone how to fix this stuff but it is serious and it will not go away as all of the hands dealt to both parties are being played out. My suggestion is to enjoy each day and kind of being prepared for the next time the cards are dealt and try to support those who might be of use to us and this stuff is being played out. I kind of think Trump was a wild card that was useful for a bit but now, ……… who knows?
@Zaphod:Yes, there’s a danger of out-of-control purity spiraling… but it’s less than the risk of being defeated piecemeal through defections and triangulations and salami-slicing.
I don’t usually second Zaphod but I do today.
I think that for decades the appropriations function of Congress has usurped the legislative functions of Congress. The lizard people buy their power and wealth using our tax money directed to their friends, patrons, and clients, and consequently, at the national level, a system of kayfabe* has sprung up and Congress uses ideological theater to distract us from the real business of picking our pockets. If we could restore Congress to a set of people who actually believe in and fight over real issues** regarding law and governance, it would be a huge step forward even if conservatives don’t win all those battles.
*”Kayfabe” is the fiction that professional wrestling is real. The rivalries, trash talk, and bouts in Congress might not be exactly scripted, but the two national parties are each playing a role and their real business is different from what they present to the public.
**Of course some Senators and Congressmen are people who are really trying to advance an ideological agenda. It is very hard to tell who they are though, or how many there are. For example, Mitch McConnell recently strong-armed his own party to set up a filibuster-proof majority for the Dems to raise the debt ceiling. On the other side, there are certainly more Dems than just Sinema and Manchin who are opposed to the ideological left. Sinema and Manchin stand firm on the “filibuster” (which is fake anyway), and don’t abandon their parties despite all the nastiness, because they know they are not alone and they know how the theater works…. the lizard people are counting on them to help keep the Left from putting the lizards out of business.
The Dems may be running out of lizards, though, as they age out, and may be turning into a truly Leftist party (instead of a fake one for electoral purposes). The question is will the Rs become purely a party of lizards, and can they get enough lizards, or will they turn into a truly conservative party? I don’t care for the lizards but I am betting on them. They’ve been at it a long time.
Well I’m flattered.
But in the spirit of Revolutions being necessarily revolting, shouldn’t forget to reverse the bus back over Ted and repeat the process several times.
Let those amongst us who have never misspoken by using a word or phrase that did not accurately reflect our thoughts throw the first stone.
^^^— thereby surrendering the field without a fight to those with no moral scruples.
Christianity is not supposed to be a suicide cult.
I was going to say that I agree with Neo exactly, but on second thought; not exactly. I was a Cruz supporter in 2016 even though I didn’t think he had the presentation style to win.
It pains me slightly to say it, but Zaphod found the perfect word for my hesitancy. Triangulation. (Other comments here are excellent too.)
Cruz didn’t misspeak. He did carefully weigh his words and options in all cases. I think what we often fail to appreciate is that our political discourse as funneled through the media is highly stratified or even “stovepiped.”
When the kerfuffle over the Cruz statements first broke, I thought that he needed to go on Tucker Carlson Tonight and clarify. And he did. But now I think he is just playing both sides in a duplicitous fashion.
Imagine some future political campaign or propaganda with ads put out by Democrats. Which Cruz quotes might they play back? The terrorist quote from the Senate floor, or the Carlson quotes? A Senate candidate running against Cruz might want to play the Carlson quote, except it might not play well in TX. National Dems pushing the insurrection meme will stick with the Senate floor quotes. None of their base watches Carlson.
Committed conservatives are likely to recall the Carlson retraction and appreciate their lack of alternatives.
So, yeah. This is the flipside of Bill Clinton’s “Sister Soulja” triangulation moment. It hurts him with his base only slightlly, but greatly reduces the offensive attacks from the opposition.
And to amplify Zaphod’s other point; this is very damaging to the conservative cause &/or the country. It seems to me that we are getting closer and closer to having a very dangerous and effective Brown Shirt or Sturmabteilung movement on the left. We’re not there yet. But when someone like a Ted Cruz starts buying into the invective used by the left, the political prisoners and back alley beatings may not be far behind.
Well, we already have some political prisoners.
Z:
You are mixing up your “C” words, Constitution and Christianity. Neither are suicide pacts, although nihilists, cynics, and Machiavelli deciples will surely disagree.
@Om:
And we were doing so well yesterday.
“Let those amongst us who have never misspoken by using a word or phrase that did not accurately reflect our thoughts throw the first stone.”
This rings more of the Gospel of John than those of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay.
All this bus talk.. Ken Kesey anyone? You’re either On the Bus or Off the Bus.
Even the airiest fairy becomes Reductionist when the rubber hits the road.
JD Keene,
I’ve never said anything in a business meeting that wasn’t measured and specific regarding my intent. I’m not a Harvard educated attorney or a debate champion. Ted Cruz is. And the floor of the Senate is a more serious forum than any conference room I’ve been in.
“Ken Kesey anyone?”
“I’d rather be a lightning rod than a seismograph.”
@Rufus:
Good one. And alludes nicely to the problem with Trimming Ted.
Trump started out as a Lightning Rod and ended up as the Remarkable Rocket (*). Or that’s who he really always was per French and Goldberg.
* Wilde’s children’s stories are pretty good.
Beware of situations in which there is 99% agreement that [word x] is a terrible evil indefensible thing. In 15 minutes, the left will redefine word x as something that 50% of the population does.
@Cassandroid:
I wish I’d thought up that nick. Love it!
Senator Cruz was my #1 choice all the way to the bitter end of the 2016 primaries. That said, I wish him well in his future private sector endeavors. Tucker Carlson correctly assessed the magnitude of Cruz’s error. Hopefully we can either hang on to that Senate seat or perhaps recover it down the road.
Geoffrey Britain +1
Neo,
Well said
Frederick on January 10, 2022 at 3:30 pm
“… I don’t approve of pet interpretations of commonly used words.”
I agree – words have meaning and some words are more meaningful than others.
Rufus T. Firefly on January 10, 2022 at 4:25 pm
In regard to presidential debates, I agree with your viewpoint, but we know the debates are infotainment provided by the networks, not analytical or educational events for the voters.
Clearly when an urgent response is required in the real world, it seldom requires debate level repartee at a seconds notice, but minutes to hours are available to accumulate information, question and analyze it, and make a decision.
Campaigning and governing are two completely different skill sets.
Punish and remind the politico’s who they serve otherwise they start serving their own pocket books at our own expense. Don’t cancel him, but make sure he needs to grovel back into the good graces of the party
Cruz’s appearance on Tucker’s show was very poor. It’s not that hard to say – “I made a mistake. I was inarticulate and did not explain myself well. I should have known better than to speak in such a cavalier way about this important topic. Here is what I should have said . . .” And now, it’s disappointing that he didn’t speak forthrightly and clearly in his own defense.
Everyone it seems wants live and vote in Texas now. Not that their own houses have glass walls. Texans will decide. but outrage and money from those other small states could make a difference. next time Ted faces the voters of Texas.
What’s the advice. “choose wisely?” Unlike some, Texas is not my state, but it is part of my country.
Let’s go Beto!
Well, the agents provocetuer inserted by the Democrats acted like terrorists. I think I can cut Mr. Cruz some slack for misspeaking, but I hope he is more careful in the future.
om…you did NOT just say “Let’s go Beto” with a straight face.
That boy’s name is Francis O’Rourke.
And the only place he should “go” is home.
@ Rufus > “That’s not the Chief Executive’s job.”
No, but they all think it should be!
People have short memories.
(Me, too, it seems.)
Here’s something that was swept rather deftly under the rug—that is, if it was even reported at all—by our corrupt media and the Democratic Party it enables, defends and encourages (along with the Democratic Party’s shock troops in antifa and BLM.)
“Flashback May 2020 Assault On The White House: 60 Secret Service Agents Wounded, President Trump Taken to Secure Bunker”
https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/01/flashback-may-2020-assault-on-the-white-house-60-secret-service-agents-wounded-president-trump-taken-to-secure-bunker/
Wonder if Senator Cruz remembers…. Wonder if ANYONE on Capitol Hill remembers for that matter….
Another reason for the furior over Cruz’s comments has to do with the fallout over the election. I can’t be the only person who listened and watched the pundit and political class leave the field and abandon the base in the aftermath of the election.
I still refuse to listen to talk radio in Seattle (Outside of Todd Herman and Lars Larson) due to the rug pulling the “conservative” stations pulled. Or listening to Ben Shapiro tear into someone who signed an affidavit pointing to election misconduct. The disgust I felt then and now is strong.
This after watching the National Review and the New York pundits abandon the base because they didn’t like Trump. More, they didn’t like the Tea Party base.
How many people were exposed as carrying the water for something else. They could have only pointed to the very obviously fraudulent, say the stop count but new numbers reporting… But they couldn’t even do that.
Failure and frauds exposed themselves. So that is the storm that Cruz blundered into. Anyone with that little political sense deserves to feel the burn as someone who puts his hands on an obviously hot oven. I don’t want people who have awful political instincts like Romney running around. Cruz is smart and he should learn. If he doesn’t he isn’t much use anyways.
Cruz was my choice for pres in the primaries of 2016, and he has maintained my reverence for him in the years since, but his wishy washy crap with this statement means he will never be president.
A shame, but when going for the highest office, the last “compassionate conservative” was a grotesque failure. Sorry Ted, I love you but you will never be president.
wickedpinto:
Probably true about Ted Cruz and the presidency.
President Brandon can also be told to say “Let’s go Beto!” and he will. What goes for Joe Brandon also goes for Beto.
I was for Cruz/Fiorina until I figured the republicans should win. And having establishment people–one of whom with little name recognition–telling us how they were going to fix what the establishment had done (while they were part of the establishment) wasn’t going to overcome the dem vote-buying and appeals to voters lower impulses.
Glad I voted for Trump.
I suspect Cruz is in the same position as back then.
The dems have told us how far outside the mainstream deSantis is, which is a favor for deSantis and it didn’t cost him anything.
So, in my view, as unfortunate as this was–whatever the reason–it’s irrelevant.
And having establishment people–one of whom with little name recognition–telling us how they were going to fix what the establishment had done (while they were part of the establishment) wasn’t going to overcome the dem vote-buying and appeals to voters lower impulses. Glad I voted for Trump.
Cruz and Fiorina are certainly people of elite circles (as was Trump), but neither were of the Washington establishment. One of Bitch McConnell’s crimes was to make use of parliamentary maneuver to prevent the closure of the Export-Import Bank. It was a clump of corporate welfare whose mandate was due to expire. Cruz had the stones to go in front of Congress and say in plain terms that McConnell and his staff had lied to his face about this. Oh, and John Boehner loathes Cruz.
When it comes to “zero tolerance” Republican supporters are better than Democrats by light years. Any criticism which ignores this simply ignores reality.
I’m regularly amazed at people who seem to think that Republicans should be held to a standard far, far better than any Democrats have ever met.
We saw it with all the blind and stupid pundits who declared Trump morally unfit while embracing a nasty, vile asshole and career criminal in Biden all the while claiming they were upholding conservative principles.
“Let those amongst us who have never misspoken by using a word or phrase that did not accurately reflect our thoughts throw the first stone.”
I seem to remember Ronald Reagan before the cameras in Iceland with Gorbachev for hours and hours. Throughout it all, Reagan knew that a single grimace or odd look or stray word would be memorialized forever as the press hated him and wanted him to fail. He understood the stakes and performed brilliantly.
If Ted didn’t understand that “terrorists” was not only inaccurate, but a third rail, he deserves the frying he got. Republicans in the White House are often vilified by the media for things they don’t even say or do. There isn’t any wiggle room. That’s the reality.
The only problem Ted Cruz has was speaking consistently about the issue, and not tempering it with how the political opposition would use those statements.
It can be argued that the rioters who used violence against others (especially law enforcement) that day were engaging in “acts of terror” in a colloquial sense, not a legal sense.
Art Deco. True, but so what? Point is, what did they look like from the outside?
Ex-Im: Who wins? Me? You? Somebody I never heard of? Maybe somebody I’d prefer lose at everything for the rest of his life? Does it trickle down to me? Affect my kids’ college costs?
Or, considering we have what looks like a cross between a Gordian Knot consisting of the entire federal government and a perimeter of partly invisible greed heads and wannabe tyrants, what we need is a human wrecking ball.
Richard Aubrey:
Well DJT (aka OMB) was the wrecking ball, but kept on a short cable, or Godzilla who was and is threatening “our democracy”; is Ron deSantis “our” Mothra?
Wrecking balls take a very skilled crane operator; you don’t want it comming back at you in the cab or taking down the boom/mast of the crane you are swinging it with.
@stan:I’m regularly amazed at people who seem to think that Republicans should be held to a standard far, far better than any Democrats have ever met.
This isn’t it at all. It’s not about purity tests.
There’s two games going on in Congress: on the surface Rs vs Ds, behind the scenes, Harlem Globetrotters vs the Washington Generals.
There is no point in betting on the Washington Generals. They are not “due”. They are playing to lose as part of the show; they’re not playing to win, they’re playing so that you buy the ticket for the show.
A big chunk of the R’s are Washington Generals. A big chunk of Ds are Harlem Globetrotters. Some of the Ds are true believer progressives and some of the Rs are true believer conservatives. But the Globetrotters and Generals hold the majority and run the game to suit themselves.
An example (I’ve used before but it was less than two months ago). Conservatives don’t believe the government should spend money it doesn’t have. The Dems needed to raise the debt ceiling to pay for their package, but there’s enough conservatives that it could have been filibustered. So Mitch McConnell, (R), who coaches the Washington Generals, engineered a filibuster-proof majority so the Dems could raise the debt ceiling, and he did this by promising to nuke the filibuster which we’ve heard so many times is norm-shattering, etc. You know that thing we have all the drama about with two Ds not going along? Somehow it didn’t get much attention back in December.
When he suits up as an R he says the Dems raised the debt ceiling, but he’s the one who actually made it happen by strong-arming his own party.
So, no, the Washington Generals are not going to save you from the Left. They will cut any deals with the Globetrotters they need to in order to save themselves and the Globetrotters from the Left (who, like us here, want to bust up the fake show and see a real government, one we won’t like). The Globetrotter strategy is to give the Left the social issues. And the Generals strategy is to pretend to oppose them, but still get to participate in appropriations that benefit their friends, patrons, and clients.
It won’t get better until we stop electing lizard people. No point in trying to put in R lizards.
There is no point in betting on the Washington Generals. They are not “due”. They are playing to lose as part of the show; they’re not playing to win, they’re playing so that you buy the ticket for the show.
Analogies aside, yes. ^This.^ Washington Generals = Non-left designated losers.
Frederick,
You’ve stated the facts well. I do not see any other reasonable explanation. It happens as you describe so consistently the system must be as you write.
I’ve thought about this a great deal and I don’t think your solution is correct. The entire system is designed to find and promote lizard people. The only non-violent way out (and I very much want a non-violent way) is the 10th amendment and citizens continually fighting for local control.
D.C. will always try to accumulate power. It is a never ending battle. States need to fight every over-reach and work together to erase all the over-reaches of the past. Counties need to fight the States. Cities need to fight the counties. Neighborhoods, churches, schools, clubs… need to fight the cities.
Get 2/3 of States to agree to not fund or acknowledge the Department of Education nor allow the Department’s employees to work within the States’ borders. And just keep on going.
Chicago is in Cook County. The other counties need to use laws and courts to fight Cook County and stop its overreach. News media were telling us parents attending school board meetings and debating policies and instruction was somehow bad, or wrong. That’s exactly how it’s supposed to work! That’s why the meetings are held. Which shows us the media is also on the side of federal control.
I don’t have great hope this will happen, but it’s the only viable solution I see.
@Rufus:I’ve thought about this a great deal and I don’t think your solution is correct.
There’s other ways. If more was devolved to states and localities, as it used to be, a lot of this would get better. Californians could have their People’s Republic if they wanted it, Delaware could continue to be governed by credit card companies, etc, and people could move to what they want to live under.
I think multiple strategies will have to be pursued simultaneously.
And again, not purity tests. Moderates ok if not lizard people.
Frederick,
All those other ways require non-DC entities to fight for their rights. That seems to be what you also outlined in your reply.
It matters more to my life who is on my local schoolboard and who my local DA is, but CNN and Fox aren’t going to focus on that because it’s not a profitable business model for a national news agency.
Andrew Yang is forming a new, 3rd party that is sort-of a non-party and Dave Smith and the Mises wing of the Libertarian party is staging a coup there that is very interesting. That’s another area we need to fight; to lessen the power of the two major parties.
People rarely relinquish power. It must be taken or diminished.
Frederick,
My main point was: voting for Democrats or Republicans at the federal level in hopes they will vote to limit their own power is a losing battle. And, to your point, that’s why they keep feeding us the Globetrotters vs. Generals show. It keeps us riled up and focused on the wrong game.
The game is in our backyard.
om.
My concern about the precision used by the wrecking ball operator varies inversely with my appreciation of the Gordianishness of the problem.
I speak first-person singular because I do, in fact, think that way. Point about wanting Trump is that I figure a number of people may well be somewhere on the same spectrum.
And he won in 2016 while Cruz, imo, would have lost. My guess is that the difference was the …..not sure how to continue the metaphor…folks who really wanted to see a change. A course change, not just a fresh coat of paint someplace.
Looks like Ted got the message and is vigorously questioning FBI stooges in Congress about their role in the events of 1/6 today.
On further thought re: Cruz and his “violent terrorist attack” statements, I think these statements come from a conventionally hard-line pro-law enforcement standpoint. He wants to be seen to be consistently pro-law enforcement, even wrt right wingers getting arrested. This is standard issue conventional GOP position, and it’s close-minded and stupid. Law enforcement needs reform and accountability; just look at the lead law enforcement agency in the country, for example. So I’m glad the Cruz seems to have gotten the message. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
@AMartel:Law enforcement needs reform and accountability; just look at the lead law enforcement agency in the country, for example.
Oh you got that right. Asset forfeiture is not something that should be allowed. And the Karens of the Right who say, of no-knock raids or other military-style tactics and equipment, “if it saves one officer’s life”, should be disregarded. This isn’t Sparta or Starship Troopers.
Richard Aubrey:
A more skillful and relentless wrecking ball operator working over the federal bureaucracy, Trump was a good start but a lot meeting is needed. No hiding how bad the feds are.
And then in WA we have our own king and vassals to deal with, made powerful by vote-by-mail (fraud).
Start at federal service: term limits, age limits and career limits just like the military, up or out. It is wrong for a creep like Fauci to glom on to a high Fed job for 30 years. It is not fair to young people for one thing and the world does belong to them.
Via Instapundit, Sen. Ted Cruz, today, questioning FBI witness Jill Sanborn:
Cruz: Did any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participate in the events of January 6th? Yes or no?
Sanborn: I can’t answer that.
https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/1480948874709651457
This Sanborn tart is the chief of the ‘national security branch’ of the FBI and one of Christopher Wray’s direct reports. Since when can government officials just blow off questions under oath?
Rufus T. Firefly:
Here’s another explanation and I think it’s reasonable.
People on the right are more conservative, therefore less likely to advocate dramatic changes. They are also more independent-minded, so their split (between true conservative and moderate conservatives or RINOs) means that their voting is more split as well and there is less backing for more extreme measures. Plus, you have the usual corruption and influence of being in DC and being in power, which is nearly unavoidable.
neo,
I agree with what you wrote. Believing those things also points to local fights against D.C. as a solution. In fact it reinforces that approach.
The leviathan will not slay itself, no matter whom we elect as its caretaker.
Chases Eagles,
Reagan and Trump were arguably the greatest change agents the GOP put in the White House in the past 4 decades. They are also the two oldest GOP candidates elected to the White House in the past 4 decades.
I am against age limits on principle (even on the lower end, all eligible voters should be able to hold all eligible offices), but age limits would have kept Trump and Reagan out of the White House, which I doubt is your goal.
Start at federal service: term limits, age limits and career limits just like the military, up or out. It is wrong for a creep like Fauci to glom on to a high Fed job for 30 years. It is not fair to young people for one thing and the world does belong to them.
Agreed. The general run of public employee should be compelled to retire (1) when they’re eligible for full Social Security and Medicare and have logged 40 years in service (pro-rating periods of part-time and seasonal employment) or (2) have reached the age of 76, whichever arrives earlier. OTOH, they shouldn’t be accumulating early retirement credits unless they are construction workers or in uniformed service. Discretionary appointees should be compelled to depart a given position when they reach the age of 76 or when they have occupied it for 12 of the previous 14 years, whichever arrives earlier. Fauci would have been compelled to retire from federal service in 2008 and (depending on how the position was classified) been compelled to leave his position as NIAID director as early as 1996.
As for members of Congress: 4 year terms, permitted to stand for election only between one’s 39th and 72d birthday, and required to stand down if one has been a member of either chamber for 14 of the last 16 years or would hit that wall during the four year term for which one might stand. Have the number of House members be the integer nearest the cube root of the citizen population and have one Senator per state, elected by the state legislatures.
Insurance programs granted federal employees and retirees would be financed by assessments on their notional compensation and retirement programs would be of the defined contribution variety.
The federal capital as of this day would be defined as including DC, two counties in Maryland, four counties in Virginia, and five stand-alone municipalities in Virginia. Members of Congress and their spouses would be forbidden by law from owning real property in the federal capital unless their congressional district intersected with it, in which case they would be permitted to own one residence therein. They would be forbidden by law from leasing property therein for a period which would extend their lease to a date more than one year beyond the end of their current term of office. After their time in Congress had concluded, they would be debarred by law from maintaining a place of business in the capital unless they had represented a portion of it, debarred by law from residing there after the conclusion of their current lease unless they had represented a portion of it, and, after one year, be limited in their franchise to visit capital to 80 calendar days per year (with the understanding that if they spent any part of a day there, they would be deemed to have spent the whole day there).
And another thing: it would be debarred by law to accept remuneration for soliciting or importuning a federal official (investigatory and adjudicatory proceedings excepted) unless one were a registered lobbyist. In order to qualify as a lobbyist, it must be so that the ratio of time not spent as a federal employee since one’s 21st birthday must exceed by a factor of four the time one has since that date spent as a federal employee; it must also be so that the time which has elapsed since one’s most recent continuous stint as a federal employee must exceed by a factor of four the duration of that stint.
I am against age limits on principle (even on the lower end, all eligible voters should be able to hold all eligible offices), but age limits would have kept Trump and Reagan out of the White House, which I doubt is your goal.
There are costs and benefits to any scheme. In New York, a judge is compelled to retire at 76. Reagan would have been debarred from running in 1984 or would have been compelled to depart in February 1987. Trump would have been debarred from standing for re-election or would have been compelled to leave office in June of 2022.
The utility of high age floors and rotation in office would be to inhibit the construction of a career like Barney Frank’s. He departed graduate school in 1968 and landed a patronage position in Kevin White’s city hall. He was elected to the Massachusetts legislature in 1972. He was elected to Congress in 1980. He earned a law degree while a state legislator, but never practiced. At the time he departed Congress, he was 70 years old and had been on public payrolls for 43 years. Another character is Kevin McCarthy, who has been on the payroll of legislative bodies in one capacity or another since age 22; he is now 56 years old. Another was Trent Lott, who was hired as a congressional aide in 1967 after finishing his law degree and remained on the payroll until 2006, at which point he resigned and landed a position with a lobbying firm.
One supplement to this is a provision in state law which would require persons in a tainted occupation seeking nomination at a caucus or convention or circulating designating petitions for a position on an elected conciliar body to run with an understudy not tainted. At such time as the nominating and designating process was complete, the state board of elections would take the measure of the number of persons with tainted occupations running under the banner of each political party. Were the number in excess of 20% (rounding up), some of the understudies would have to replace the main candidates on the ballot in order to push the proportion to 20% or thereabouts. These would be selected by lot. (Again, this would apply to elections to conciliar bodies, not executive positions or judgeships).
You could also make it so that someone who had formerly held a tainted occupation would still be deemed tainted if (1) the ratio of time since age 21 wherein he did not hold such an occupation to that wherein he did hold such an occupation does not exceed 0.25 and (2) the ratio of time since the candidate last held such a position to that of his last stint in such an occupation does not exceed 0.25.
Tainted occupations:
1. Public employee not elected to office
2. Member of the Bar
3. Salaried employee of a registered lobby
4. Salaried employee of a philanthropic corporation classified as a political organization under state corporation law, i.e. a political party, contribution bundler, campaign committee, or advocacy and lobbying group.
This would still allow careers in legislative bodies resembling those of upChuck Schumer or Richard Durbin or Kevin McCarthy, but it would narrow the portal considerably.
On Cruz, a small definite negative. Also showing his political tone-deafness with a lousy interview with Tucker. Still in my top 5 choices if Trump chooses to NOT run, but I think Trump’s at 80% chance to decide, with a really non-betting shallow belief. Waiting for 2022 midterms – how many new Rep Trumpers will be in Congress. & Shouldn’t we talk more about those races?
Art Deco – super wonk.
I love it.
No chance any such scheme will work soon.
I support Term Limits: 10 years for Congress, 12 years for Senate, 18 years for Supreme Court (they’re NOT Popes, nor are they supposed to be).
But I see how difficult it will be get these, or even a Constitutional Convention to offer them, since it’s so unlikely the Congress will do so. Tho I can imagine the SC amendment.
However, I can imagine Rep leaders getting behind “Public Service” term limits – 10/11 years and you’re out (Frozen salary after 10 years, max final 1 year to find a new job).
I’d be happier if more Deep State was fired, but think a smaller positive step is that more politically possible would be much, much better.
Part of the marketing of the policy is to get more top people from state & private organizations, and get rid of “lifetime Fed gov’t employment”.
Lots of good implications in this.
@neo:People on the right are more conservative, therefore less likely to advocate dramatic changes. They are also more independent-minded…
It’s tempting to believe that one’s political opponents are just a different kind of people. But it gets in the way of seeing the true problems and their true solutions. Plenty of times in history, right up until last week, when “conservatives” and the “right” have engaged in groupthink or proposed radical changes.
Dems can point to a huge range of opinion in their own ranks. Right now two of them are very publicly going against the rest and are not thrown out of their party, after all. The Dems use terms like “DINO”.
I believe, with Solzhenitsyn, that “the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart — and through all human hearts.”
Congress has been captured by a group of people who are personally profiting from the appropriation of tax money, because a system has grown up that concentrates them and allows them to flourish. Hundreds of thousands of people’s livelihoods are directly tied to the decisions these people make. It’s not about which party has the broader minds or tolerance for dissent or which is less evil. Humans are humans. It’s about changing the conditions so that such people, who will always be with us in all parties or professions, can’t run things for their own benefit while distracting us with theater.
Four weeks ago Mitch McConnell didn’t allow a vote that would have frustrated his ostensible opponents’ plans: a vote his party would have “won” in the sense that they had enough to sustain the filibuster. He threw that away and made the Dems’ plans happen. He couldn’t have done that without a majority of both parties helping him do it and without the national media keeping quiet, as they don’t do for Manchin and Sinema on “Build Back Better”. If most R’s didn’t agree with his tactics why does he have his leadership position and why did they pledge their votes to him? None of them can be bound to vote a certain way….
Definite “No” as to age limits so long as we have reasonable transparency about health. No more Biden placeholders. Term limits would seriously clean up the elected official hippo pool (no more Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi public servant multi-millionaires) but the permanent bureaucracy would find a way to deal with it so, though tempting, that’s a tentative “No.”
Definite “No” as to age limits so long as we have reasonable transparency about health.
Unknown unknowns.
And the condition of politicians can be dynamic. Compare Zhou Bai-den two years ago to today.
We’re not talking about someone continuing to sell insurance. We’re talking about public officials who have to rely on staff and have coercive authority. From 1789 to the present, we’ve spent a grand total of three years being superintended by a man past his 76th birthday. It’s not working out for us now, and even Reagan’s last two years in office were a mixed bit of business. (Although Maureen Reagan said later she noticed nothing untoward about her father until mid-1993. His mental acuity completely left him over a period of about 20 months).
He threw that away and made the Dems’ plans happen. He couldn’t have done that without a majority of both parties helping him do it
I don’t believe he had a majority of his own caucus.
One problem is that the floor leader’s positions have too many tools to punish dissenters at their discretion. McConnell is long past his sell by date.
@Art Deco:I don’t believe he had a majority of his own caucus.
Even worse, that he worked with the Dems against a majority of his own party to materially advance their agenda. I’ve never been to a Globetrotters game but I think the Generals do get to score sometimes, but in this case he stole the ball from his own team, and passed it to the other team, and then complains to the fans in the stands that sure they got dunked on but they’ll try harder next time….
One problem is that the floor leader’s positions have too many tools to punish dissenters at their discretion.
But who gives them that power? It’s not written into the Constitution, or Federal law as far as I know. They have that power because most of them are okay with that system.
Getting the Washington Generals a new coach or better draft pick or getting them to play zone instead of man-to-man is not going to improve their season.
You know, there came a point when Americans decided that getting more Whigs and fewer Tories into Parliament was not going to cut it, and they came up with a new system. And not twenty years later there came a point where tweaking the composition of the Continental Congress was not going to cut it and they came up with a new system.
I trust Ted Cruz’ judgment a hell of a lot more than I trust Tucker Carlson’s.
but the permanent bureaucracy would find a way to deal with it so, though tempting, that’s a tentative “No.”
Talking in riddles.
Sometimes the answer to a riddle is obvious.
Sometimes the answer to a riddle is obvious.
Four flusher