Munisteri says Cruz is a “bright star”
The Abilene Reporter-News published a remarkable story about a speech by Republican party chairman Steve Munisteri.
“Is Ted Cruz a bright star or what?” Minusteri said in a speech at the Brownwood Country Club.
The article continued, “After the meeting, he hesitated to say that Dewhurst, who was backed by Gov. Rick Perry, would be less effective in the upcoming legislative session, or that the governor lost any political clout by backing a loser–though he didn’t say they would remain political powerhouses.”
“The next legislative session will be critical for Dewhurst and for Perry,” he said. “You always want the last thing you do to be positive.”
If the 2013 legislative session is a swan song for the state’s longest tenured governor and his No. 2, the next generation of Texas political leaders will be ready to step in, headlined by Cruz.
“The secret to Cruz’s success is to be passionate to his ideals,” Munisteri said. “I don’t expect him to change one bit while in the Senate. He’ll end up being a new generation of younger Republican leaders in the state.”
Cruz, 41–and two decades younger than Perry, Dewhurst, and a host of other establishment Republican leaders in Texas–will be a speaker at the Republican National Convention in Tampa later this month.
“He could spring onto the national scene and be a big name, a Mike Huckabee type, one of those faces who is always on Fox News,” Munisteri said.
* * * *
This is amazing. Munisteri all but told Perry and Dewhurst it is time for them to go. (I couldn’t agree more, but then I’m not the chairman of the Republican Party of Texas.) Clearly, Munisteri prefers the next generation of Republican leader to the current one. Amazing indeed.
vietvet3 says:
He’ll be walking it back, etch-a-sketching, and crying “out of context”, before suppertime…
Reply »
Red says:
The phrase “don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya” comes to mind.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
more democrat wishful thinking. How long has it been since dems have been revelant….two decades?
Reply »
John Johnson says:
This blog is forced on you isn’t it, Paul? It shows. One thread a week, many of which are really lukewarm. Of all the things happening in Texas / National politics you post another tepid one here.
What would you expect Munisteri to say? ” I don’t expect much out of Cruz. We were disappointed he won. We look forward to seeing Gov. Perry, the man who singlehandedly made Texas voters and the Repub Party of Texas look like complete idiots, run for another term? ” Or “We know Dewhurst has profound ideas and can energize Texans just as soon as he develops a personality and learns how to communicate with the voters”.
They are toast. We’ll see about Cruz. He could be a David Clyde.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
August 14th, 2012 at 5:22 am
Vert astute his blog has been by hijacked. Someone is making Paul put his name on a piece of propaganda who’s sole intent is to bash the republican party.
I find it amusing, because that’s what most democrat blogs do. Paul resists by letting republicans post the truth. No democrat blog has ever done that. That’s why I seldom fault him.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
August 14th, 2012 at 5:36 am
Even when I disagree with you, your posts make me smile.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
August 14th, 2012 at 7:37 am
I think JJ is right. Burka doesn’t enjoy blogging and is told to do this in order to generate page hits for the Texas Monthly website.
Cruz is no David Clyde. He’s more like another Walter Johnson – who ran for congress as a Republican by the way.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
August 14th, 2012 at 8:22 am
I blog when I have something to say; if not, I don’t blog. Nor do I blog when I am working on a major assignment for TEXAS MONTHLY, as is the case now.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
August 14th, 2012 at 9:00 am
The interesting thing about the article is not what Munisteri said about Cruz. It’s what he implied about Dewhurst and Perry.
Reply »
Dave Reply:
August 14th, 2012 at 9:46 am
Maybe you should speak to the headline writer.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
August 14th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
HA! I guess Burka’s headline writer buried the lead.
Blue Dogs Reply:
August 15th, 2012 at 2:39 pm
I feel that Perry is likely to retire anyway.
Reply »
Beerman says:
Is the Canadian-born son (Ted Cruz) of a Cuban-born Dad and a Delaware-born Mom constitutionally eligible to serve as President or Vice President or Senator?
Is he a Canadian Latino with a Cubab communist upbringing?
I am going to check with Rush and Glen Beck to get the real scoop!
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
I think Munisteri is a closet Ron Pauler. If I had known that 2 years ago I would have supported him for GOP party chair over Cathie Adams.
Fiscal conservatism: fine. But we (GOP, Texans, Americans) have got to STOP the endless, unconstitutional, bankrupting wars and start protecting our civil liberties and privacy… and the Federal Reserve which is another key cog.
And we need to take a knife to the Pentagon and a knife to the neocons philosophy.
So I really hope Ted Cruz and Munisteri steer us in this direction.
In 2007 at the Iowa Straw poll Munisteri was perhaps the lone campaigner for Fred Thompson. In 2008 Ted Cruz was a fundraiser for Thompson. Randy Samuelson, SREC committeeman was also a Thompson supporter.
The acid test for Ted Cruz if he gets to the Senate will be on foreign policy, imperialism, endless wars, Israel, civil liberties and if he will oppose the national security state.
I hope he listens to Ron Paul.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Now you’re “hoping” Cruz becomes a Libertarian? He will be a trunk to tail Republican. He will ask how high when told to jump, and he will repeat the party mantra as dictated by party leaders. After he shows he is worthy, he will be rewarded with better appointments. He will be a good water boy and great mouthpiece. Nothing more.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
August 14th, 2012 at 3:18 am
the Ron Paulers were treated fair at the Texas state GOP convention, unlike Ron Paulers in many, many other states across the nation.
That is a credit to Munisteri who did not engage in a jihad against them. In fact a lot of Debra Medina people helped to elect Munisteri GOP chair.
Reply »
Whoa, Nellie! says:
Bright star? So is a nova (exploding star).
Reply »
Whoa, Nellie! Reply:
August 14th, 2012 at 3:56 pm
And you don’t want to be standing next to one.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
46 of the 57 states now have convictions for voter fraud since 2000 refuting anita’s claim that have been no convictions for voter fraud since 1958, in the US.
Once again proving if you tell a lie enough democrtas will believe it.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
August 14th, 2012 at 9:02 am
No one claims that there have been no convictions for voter fraud. The important fact is that there have been no convictions for voter impersonation. Voter I.D. is designed to protect against voter impersonation, which does not exist.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
August 14th, 2012 at 9:35 am
There has been documented evidence every example of voter fraud democratshave used.
LBJ was a master at it and used it blatantly in 1948 and again in 1960 to help Kennedy/Johnson win. That’s why he was on the ticket despite the animosity between Kennedy Johnson. The Texas/Chicago voter fraud tactics stole the election.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
August 14th, 2012 at 11:21 am
Lyndon Johnson was put on the 1960 Demo ticket because he and Sam Rayburn used Hoover’s dossier on JFK’s sexual indiscretions to blackmail JFK into putting LBJ as VP.
JFK had a deal with Stuart Symington that was signed, sealed and delivered according to Clark Clifford. It was busted up at the last minute by LBJ/Rayburn.
Johnson could afford to run and lose in 1960 because he could still be elected US Senator and perhaps be in line to be the Demo nominee in 1964 if Kennedy lost.
LBJ was not put on the 1960 Demo ticket because of his vote stealing capabilities. It was because of blackmail, threats and intimidation.
paulburka Reply:
August 17th, 2012 at 8:23 am
LBJ was on the ticket because the Democrats needed to carry the “Solid South.” Johnson made that happen. After the 1960 election the phrase “Solid South” disappeared from American politics. George Wallace carried the Deep South in 1964.
Gunslinger Reply:
August 14th, 2012 at 10:06 am
If that’s true JBB, you’re a bigger democrat than Jesse Jackson. You want so badly to believe that illegal Mexican laborers go to all the trouble of obtaining a false ID, finding the right voting location, waiting in line, lying to an election official just so he can cast one vote in an election that will not impact his daily life one bit.
For a dirt poor migrant whose livelihood depends on avoiding law enforcement, that’s going to a lot of trouble to commit a 3rd degree felony for virtually no reward. Now, what’s that about believing a lie?
I would think a professional criminal profiler, such as yourself JBB, you’d be better at predicting someone’s motivations and behavior. Where did you get your psychology degree?
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
August 19th, 2012 at 12:44 am
Burka (and many others): “LBJ was on the ticket because the Democrats needed to carry the “Solid South.”
That is one of the great fantasies of modern history. LBJ strong armed his way onto the 1960 presidential ticket with threats, intimidation and using sexual blackmail on Kennedy. Hy Raskin and Clark Clifford confirm that the deal to put Symington on the ticket with JFK was a “signed, sealed and delivered.” Then at the very last moment LBJ & Rayburn, using Hoover’s sexual dossier on JFK, dropped the hammer down in the night of July 13th and early morning July 14th, 1960 in Los Angeles.
As JFK told Hy Raskin: they (meaning LBJ & Rayburn) promised me trouble and I don’t need trouble. So JFK had to break his promise to Symington, drop him at the last moment and put Johnson on the ticket.
The Kennedys were going to go with Symington and make a play for California where Symington was popular and which had a huge amount of electoral votes. JFK/LBJ lost California by 1/2 percent.
So why all the lying about what really happened? It is embarrassing to the legacy of Kennedy, that he was such a compromised man and so weak as to put the utterly despised LBJ on the ticket. So the Kennedy folks like Sorensen and Schlesinger promote the fantasy of LBJ being picked for electoral reasons.
And the Johnson people aren’t going to tell you what happened either because it makes LBJ look so malevolent which he was.
CBS Reporter Nancy Dickerson’s Account of how Lyndon Johnson got selected at the 1960 Democratic convention:
“As the convention drew nearer, JFK had three secret meetings with Clark Clifford, who was handling the campaign of Senator Stuart Symington. The first was a luncheon at Kennedy’s Washington house, where, through Clifford, he offered the Vice Presidency to Symington, provided Symington’s Missouri delegation votes went to Kennedy. Symington turned down the deal. The second conversation, which took place in Los Angeles, was a repeat of the first, and again it was refused. The third conversation was in Kennedy’s hideaway in Los Angeles, during which he told Clifford that he was fairly certain of a first-ballot victory and asked if Symington would be his running mate. As Clifford later told me, “There were no strings attached. It was a straight offer.” The Symington and Clifford families conferred, Symington agreed to run, and Clifford relayed the news to Kennedy.
Clifford was playing a unique role: he was not only Symington’s campaign advisor but JFK’s personal lawyer as well. He is one of the world’s most sophisticated men, and he does not make mistakes about matters like this. As he told me, “We had a deal signed, sealed and delivered.”
[...]
Early the next morning, Thursday, July 14, John Kennedy walked down the flight of stairs from his suite to call on Senator and Mrs. Johnson. There was a new sense of seriousness about him, a reserved inner calm that was perceptible not only in the way he walked, but in the way reporters and onlookers gave him a new deference, standing aside to let him through. I never dreamed that he was there to offer the Vice Presidency to LBJ- and if any of those among the more than fifty other reporters outside the door were thinking about it, they didn’t say so. It never crossed my mind because Johnson had sworn to me a dozen times, both on the air and off, that he would never take the Vice Presidency.
For his part, Johnson had been expecting the offer; he took it at face value and said he’d think it over. A politician to his bones, he could see the merits of a Kennedy-Johnson combination. All the Johnson aides believed it was a serious offer, and LBJ went to his grave saying he thought so, but there were many in the Kennedy camp who believed that it was only a courtesy.”
[Nancy Dickerson, "Among Those Present: A Reporter's View of 25 Years in Washington," pp. 43-44]
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks says:
There have been 10 cases of alleged in-person voter fraud in the U.S. since the year 2000. Talk about a non problem, it really is. There are about 146,000,000 registered voters in the U.S.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
There have been very few convictions for Medicare/Medicare and SS fraud, too, Mr. Franks, in comparison to the number of actual perpetrators. Might that not be the case here? Who’s actually actively looking for these people? How tenacious are they? We both know the answers.
Reply »
texun Reply:
August 16th, 2012 at 12:19 am
Not even close to the same situations. There have been some significant convictions for medicare fraud as a topical search in WaPo and other newspapers will disclose. But, Medicare commonly declines payment for services or procedures that are dubious. I’ve seen that happen. They can block fraud without necessarily going to court, which they tend to do against the dumbest and most flagrant violators.
Again, JJ, you love to go all factual on us without doing research. A habit of yours, I think.
Reply »
longleaf says:
There have been practically ZERO prosecutions, much less convictions, of Wall Street malfeasance, only continuing trillions of dollars thrown at the banksters to bail them out.
It is safe to say this trend will continue under the Thurston Howell III-Eddie Munster administration, should it materialize.
I say prosecute EVERY IGNORAMUS who shows up at the polls from now on for TERMINAL STUPIDITY. They are obviously CLUELESS as to how our system here in Banksterstan operates.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
August 14th, 2012 at 11:25 am
Romney is Thurston Howell III !!!
Ok, who is Ginger because I am ready.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
August 14th, 2012 at 11:26 am
Obama is Gilligan.
Reply »
emptyk says:
Munisteri loves him some Ted Cruz. Donna Campbell and Ted Cruz will be the true leaders during the next session of the legislature, not the Dew and the Rick.
The cruelty of the Republican primary voters to anybody associated with governance will result in a session in which every Republican will spin in place while trying to look over both shoulders simultaneously.
Reply »
Bert-n-Ernie says:
emptyk obviously has no understanding of the Texas Senate. Donna Campbell NOT being a disaster will be a pleasant surprise. Despite the crowing of morons like MQS and Kelly Shackelford’s toady in Austin, the Senate has not changed that much. For example, the 2/3rds rule will remain in place. Intelligent Republicans understand that by decades end there could well be parity in the Senate, perhaps even a slim Democrat majority. The 2/3rds rule and the tradition behind it will protect a future Republican/Conservative minority’s influence.
And Ted Cruz? We won’t see him in the legislative session; he’ll be too busy becoming a DC insider and hogging airtime on Fox, CNN and god forbid, even MSNBC. No camera or microphone will be safe once he hits town.
Reply »
Bodhisattva says:
Dear Media: Thank you for falling all over yourselves about how Ted Cruz is a rising star and the most popular politician EVER! After all, he was nominated by 631,316 voters out of 13,065,425 registered Texas voters and 137,263,000 registered voters nationally.
Now, his numbers may look unimpressive in that context, but once more people have learned about his opposition to women’s health funding, his efforts to deny consumers the right to sue corporations that have defrauded them, and his fear that the United Nations wants to take away our golf courses, then the voters will REALLY flock to him.
And then, dear Media, you will take as much glee in tearing him down as you have in puffing him up.
Dear Ted: please do not start believing your own hype. We need serious people in D.C.
Reply »
Tom says:
Meanwhile, another nail in Perry’s coffin:
Hutchison is retiring from the Senate after this year. In an exit interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, Hutchison said: “We needed to help the banks in a way that would not allow the whole world’s economy to collapse.” She said President George W. Bush called her personally to help save the economy. She suggested it was unfair, “especially in Texas, when George Bush asks you to vote for something and you do, and then your governor attacks you for it.” As she has said before, Hutchison said she wasn’t happy with the way the bank bailout was administered, but didn’t back away from the vote itself.
As for critics demanding deep budget cuts and dwindling government, she said: “Do you really want to not have bridges and the highways that keep commerce moving?” Perry allies, going full tea party, skewered Hutchison as a Republican in name only (RINO). “In my opinion, there’s no such thing as a RINO. Noting makes me madder than a Republican who makes fun of someone who’s not exactly the way they are. If someone’s a Republican, they should be welcome in the Republican Party.”
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
August 15th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Tom, Perry’s political career was DOOMED once his presidential campaign imploded as soon as Romney & Co., picked apart Perry’s record during the debates.
Reply »
Whoa, Nellie! says:
I have been no fan of KBH, never voted for her, but at least she recognizes that the business of government is governing, not throwing bombs and torching the place.
The anti-government Tea Partiers, out of deceit or stupidity, want to take the state and country back to the 19th century and subject most citizens to the role of prey and serfs to the monied classes.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
More on how Lyndon Johnson *really* got on the 1960 Demo ticket.
Evelyn Lincoln, JFK’s secretary, reports that Johnson, with J. Edgar Hoover’s dark help, got on the 1960 Democratic ticket by using BLACKMAIL on the Kennedys
“During the 1960 campaign, according to Mrs. Lincoln, Kennedy discovered how vulnerable his womanizing had made him. Sexual blackmail, she said, had long been part of Lyndon Johnson’s modus operandi—abetted by Edgar. “J. Edgar Hoover,” Lincoln said, “gave Johnson the information about various congressmen and senators so that Johnson could go to X senator and say, `How about this little deal you have with this woman?’ and so forth. That’s how he kept them in line. He used his IOUs with them as what he hoped was his road to the presidency. He had this trivia to use, because he had Hoover in his corner. And he thought that the members of Congress would go out there and put him over at the Convention. But then Kennedy beat him at the Convention. And well, after that Hoover and Johnson and their group were able to push Johnson on Kennedy.”LBJ,” said Lincoln, “had been using all the information Hoover could find on Kennedy—during the campaign, even before the Convention. And Hoover was in on the pressure on Kennedy at the Convention.” (Anthony Summers, Official and Confidential, p. 272).
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
More on how Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn blackmailed and threatened John Kennedy to get Lyndon Johnson on the Democratic ticket in 1960
In reality John Kennedy was all set to pick Sen. Stuart Symington of Missouri who was very popular in California, which had a whopping 35 electoral votes at that time. With Johnson on the ticket, Kennedy lost California by a razer close 1/2 of a percent. It is very possible that a Kennedy/Symington ticket would have WON California.
Read the Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh, p.124-129:
Close JFK friend Hy Raskin: “Johnson was not being given the slightest bit of consideration by any of the Kennedys… On the stuff I saw it was always Symington who was going to be the vice president. The Kennedy family had approved Symington.” [Hersh, p. 124]
John Kennedy to Clark Clifford on July 13, 1960: “We’ve talked it out – me, dad, Bobby – and we’ve selected Symington as the vice president.” Kennedy asked Clark Clifford to relay that message to Symington “and find out if he’d run.” …”I and Stuart went to bed believing that we had a solid, unequivocal deal with Jack.” [Hersh, p.125]
Hy Raskin: “It was obvious to them that something extraordinary had taken place, as it was to me,” Raskin wrote. “During my entire association with the Kennedys, I could not recall any situation where a decision of major significance had been reversed in such a short period of time…. Bob [Kennedy] had always been involved in every major decision; why not this one, I pondered… I slept little that night.” [Hersh, p. 125]
John Kennedy to Clark Clifford in the morning of July 14, 1960: “I must do something that I have never done before. I made a serious deal and now I have to go back on it. I have no alternative.” Symington was out and Johnson was in. Clifford recalled observing that Kennedy looked as if he’d been up all night.” [Hersh, p. 126]
John Kennedy to Hy Raskin: “You know we had never considered Lyndon, but I was left with no choice. He and Sam Rayburn made it damn clear to me that Lyndon had to be the candidate. Those bastards were trying to frame me. They threatened me with problems and I don’t need more problems. I’m going to have enough problems with Nixon.” [Hersh, p. 126]
Raskin “The substance of this revelation was so astonishing that if it had been revealed to me by another other than Jack or Bob, I would have had trouble accepting it. Why he decided to tell me was still very mysterious, but flattering nonetheless.” [Hersh, p. 126]
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Robert Kennedy in his oral history said that Stuart Symington was the final pick for Vice President for JFK
(That is … until LBJ and Sam Rayburn threatened/blackmailed JFK in the AM July 14, 1960)
John Simkin: “In an interview with John Bartlow Martin for the Kennedy Oral History Project on 1st March 1964, Robert Kennedy claims that “the only people who were involved in the discussions (about who should join JFK on the ticket) were Jack and myself. Nobody else was involved in it”. “We thought either (Scoop) Jackson or (Stuart) Symington”. Robert goes on to say they eventually settled on Symington.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Pierre Salinger is another person that was convinced that Lyndon Johnson blackmailed his way onto the 1960 Democratic ticket.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17218&st=75&gopid=218292&
Robert Kennedy to Pierre Salinger on why in the world John Kennedy would pick the despised Lyndon Johnson to be his VP running mate in 1960: “The whole story will never be known. And it’s just as well that it won’t be.” RFK said this to Salinger just a few days after the 1960 Democratic convention.
(My view, the Kennedys simply could not admit publicly or even to their supporters that Lyndon Johnson had blackmailed, threatened and intimidated JFK into putting him as VP on the ticket. The reality makes John Kennedy look like a weak, sexually compromised man who could not stand up to an aggressive bully like LBJ. Sorry, folks, but that is exactly what happened.)
Reply »
Weston says:
Burka’s first comment was confused. Cruz was saying they both need a good session so the last thing they do before their re-elect is good not bad.
Reply »