Facebook > Email > More Pinterest Print Twitter Play

All the Cruz That’s Fit to Print

It’s time to come to terms with the idea that Ted Cruz could be the Republican nominee.

By Comments

A journalist covering politics is bound to spend any presidential election cycle running an ad hoc straw poll of sorts. Since March, in other words, I’ve heard more about Ted Cruz than I care to remember, and over the past week I’ve sensed a shift in public opinion concerning his prospects.

Throughout the race Cruz has elicited a fair amount of media coverage and a lot of heated commentary from politics fans. During the spring and summer that seemed to be a measure of how controversial he had become after less than three years in national politics, because the amount of attention he received was wildly disproportionate to his perceived prospects. According to my straw poll, hardly anyone thought he had a good chance of being the party’s nominee. Many respondents were vehemently opposed to the idea that anyone could possibly think so. But about two months ago, the scoffing started to abate, probably because the 2016 Republican primary had started to seem like a bag of cats in a clown car. As of a month or so ago, I was frequently hearing that the Republican field will eventually narrow to a two-man fight between Marco Rubio and Cruz.

And just in the past week I’ve noticed an abrupt uptick in the number of people who believe that Cruz will be the Republican nominee. Concurrently, there’s been a sharp decline in the number of people insisting that the idea of Cruz being the nominee is unthinkable.

Obviously, my straw poll is a highly unscientific exercise and the results described above aren’t consistent with the most recent findings in more scientific exercises. PredictWise, for example, gives Rubio a 44 percent chance of winning the nomination, followed by Trump at 22 percent and Cruz at 16 percent. Real polls suggest that Cruz is gaining momentum nationwide—in the past month his support has roughly doubled, from 7 percent to 13 percent, and the new Quinnipiac poll, released this morning, had him at 16 percent—but that puts him in only fourth place behind Trump, Carson, and Rubio. And though Carson’s star appears to be fading, Trump remains a surprisingly resilient obstacle to all the other candidates—in addition to being a threat to the credibility of the party, and a pox on America’s political discourse. Jonathan Martin, writing yesterday in the New York Times, reports that the Republican establishment isn’t even sure what to do at this point: “Irritation is giving way to panic as it becomes increasingly plausible that Mr. Trump could be the party’s standard-bearer and imperil the careers of other Republicans.”

Cruz also continues to face more fierce opposition from his fellow Republicans than most of his rivals for the nomination, including the one widely presumed to be his counterpart in the final showdown. Burgess Everett and Seung Min Kim of Politico Magazine report that a number of Republicans in Congress are preparing to publicly announce their support for Rubio: “The idea of Cruz as the nominee is enough to send shudders down the spines of most Senate Republicans.” Some Republican operatives told Martin that they are reluctant to go after Trump for the time being; their reasoning is that Trump is preventing Cruz, “an even less-desirable standard-bearer,” from amassing more support.

On the other hand, this ferocious GOP opposition to Cruz reflects an apparently widespread premise that someone has to stop him because otherwise he might win. So I’ll note one more finding from my completely unscientific straw poll: in the past week I’ve heard a couple of Republicans predict, confidently though not publicly, that Cruz will be the next president. That’s currently considered far-fetched, obviously, and Democrats may be right to scoff at the suggestion. But more relevant in the short term is whether Republicans are starting to believe that, because Cruz’s ability to win the nomination may depend on his perceived electability. As it stands, Rubio is considered a far stronger general election candidate, while many pundits consider Cruz unelectable in November 2016; two people had emailed me this Frank Bruni broadside before I finished my coffee this morning.

For my part, I think it’s unwise to underestimate Cruz’s chances in a general election. Given that his goal is to become president and he’s the guy who currently has a staffer corralling delegates in Guam, we can take it as given that he knows there’s this additional, post-primary hurdle and is planning accordingly. And Cruz’s reputation as a right-wing bomb thrower may even work to his advantage if he makes it that far; considering the sweeping contempt and loathing that his campaign has inspired thus far, the candidate himself might seem not that bad in comparison.

Still, since he never ran for office before 2012, and that was a statewide election in Texas, Cruz has no record of winning a competitive general election. So rather than making any predictions I’ll just offer a warning for readers who are sick of reading about Ted Cruz: I understand. But it’s gonna get worse.

Related Content

  • donuthin2

    Well crap, I may have to vote for the democratic candidate for the first time in 40 years. Hillary could do nothing bad enough to make me vote for Ted.

    • Jed

      i think this comment alone serves to fully refute the thesis of the article.

      this article does represent progress, though, in that no words were used incorrectly in the headline.

  • David Gilliland

    I agree. It is very unfortunate that he has been flying under the radar. In terms of policy, he is further to the right than any other candidate. He’s already trying to show that he can appeal to the middle (i.e., his speech about condoms), but he is further to the right than any of the other GOP candidates and he is extremely intelligent. None of the other GOP candidates will be able to take him down if he gets the upper hand. Facts will not stand in his way either. The whole discussion of Trump and Fascism is actually more applicable to Mr. Cruz. He is a zealot.

    • wessexmom

      Don’t be fooled by Cruz. His comments about condoms were a dodge (and a dog whistle for Christian zealots). Cruz was asked by a woman in the audience if he believes women have the right to access contraceptives and control their bodies. But in his response, Cruz refuses to even mention birth control pills–the method WOMEN use to CONTROL their reproductive cycles; He only mentions the one contraceptive method that can be controlled by men! The reason he would not answer her question directly is because birth control pills HAVE become a controversial topic in the world of Christian wing nuts. His refusal to acknowledge their existence is the true takeaway.

      • David Gilliland

        I agree – no doubt about it.

      • tgnoble

        You dont need birthcontrol pills if you have condoms and people should pay for their own birth control regardless. Insurane or public funding should never cover birth control.

  • WUSRPH

    Having a bunch of US Senators and Representatives make it clear that he is distasteful, at the least, might even help Cruz with the far right populists and crazies that are backing Trump. (who now says, in effect, that we need to kill ISIS babies before they can grow up to hate us). He’s been nuzzling up to Trump to try to stay acceptable to those folks all along…but the question is are they a significant enough group to push him past Rubio. I tend to think not…as it is more likely that as the other GOP candidates begin to fall by the wayside it will benefit Rubio more than Cruz.

    • wessexmom

      Maybe, but pollsters who are looking closely at the numbers don’t think Rubio can even win the primary in his home state of Florida, much less those in Iowa, New Hampshire or states across the deep South where Cruz has been campaigning for months. This whole process could get VERY ugly and scary before it’s over.

  • Jerry Patterson

    I’m not in a panic about Cruz, I’m in a panic about Trump. As I’ve said before I will not vote for Trump next November, and based on my own straw poll I have lots of company. Skipping that vote or voting for Jim Webb if he runs as an independent are better options even if Hillary wins as a result. President Hillary would be a dose of tough love for a Republican party goes off the cliff and nominates Trump. JP

  • You are correct Erica. Sen Cruz has mapped out a strategy and is sticking to it.
    Reading the other comments about Cruz is starting to look more and more Reaganesque.
    In 1980 he got 489 electoral votes, carried 44 states and won in a landslide.

  • jadedhaven

    Ted Cruz makes my skin crawl. This guy is super creepy.

  • jadedhaven

    Can anybody list one concrete thing Cruz has done to benefit the state of Texas since becoming our junior senator?

    • WUSRPH

      Nothing, but he did not go to Washington to do anything concrete for Texas or for any other state or person…..He went to run for president.

      • jadedhaven

        Some of us realize that bit of hard truth, apparently his supporters don’t.
        They seem to appreciate religious/constitution buzzwords words more than actual legislative deeds. I am rather amazed that fiscal conservatives love the guy after he wasted $24 billion of taxpayer funds to pointlessly shut down the government simply to grandstand/demagogue/raise his presidential profile.
        I don’t get the appeal of this narcissistic, do-nothing blowhard.

        • WUSRPH

          You overlooked the fact that most of his supporters either do not understand how shutting down the govt. could have had a cost or hate the false picture of what they think is the govt. so much that they do not care.

          Cruz’ appealt is that he attacks what they see as the
          enemy and claims to have god and the constitution on his side (both of which are questionable). They attributed the fact that he is totally disliked by most of the people who have had to work with or around him during his career to everyone else being a sell-out. (It is certainly clear that he did not get to pick his college roommate.)

          But just wait for the screams when it turns out that their “vital govt. program” (say keeping mother in a govt. paid nursing home bed so they don’t have to bear the cost) becomes Cruz’ “waste, fraud, corruption and unconstitutional spending”. By then, of course, it would have been too late.

          • Jed

            this assumes he would actually cut any of those things once elected.

            but remember, he’d want to be reelected.

          • WUSRPH

            That depends on how much of the stuff he preaches he actually believes. If he is the “true believer” he claims to be, he will try to reverse many of the achievements of the 20th Century. If he does not, the JJ types will give him the title WPE.

          • Jed

            or (3) no they won’t.

          • WUSRPH

            You are not suggesting that they might have particular and special reasons for assigning that title to the present occupant of the Oval Office that do not apply to all but one of the other candidates, are you?

          • John Johnson

            How many people liked Patton?

          • WUSRPH

            Depends on the group. Many of his fellow officers liked him as a person…Ike saved his ass because of a personal relationship that went back to 1920….many also recognized is tactical skill and ability to get the most out of his men…BUT virtually ALL military officers of his service level were totally opposed to giving him any position where any there was any significant need to work with others and were he might have any independent strategic decision making powers. They did not trust his judgment for any top command level.

            The general public loved him, but all they knew was his press clippings…they were even willing to overlook his striking enlisted men in two incidents in military hospitals.

            His troops respected him and would do what he wanted, but probably hated him as a man.

            So it is not as easy as you would like to think.

            The only thing that he and Cruz share is an outsized ego…..

          • John Johnson

            I see some similarities. His peers disliked him because he was bold, different and didn’t play well on the playground with others. The people seem to be gravitating to him. We’ll see.

            Here’s what I don’t understand…why aren’t more candidates picking up on what is turning people on about both Trump and Cruz? Many are sick and tired of the status quo. Have you noticed that these two guys are the only ones pounding on Wall Street and the big banks? These two, and Bernie. They ought to get Elizabeth Warren to join them and hold a rally.

            When did Republicans start railing about cutting out all the subsidies going to the Big’s? Aren’t the Big’s and Repub’s supposed to be in bed with each other? Well, they are…but Trump and Cruz aren’t. Dem’s and Repub’s both hate these guys. The disgruntled, shat upon public is figuring out that they really don’t.

          • WUSRPH

            Some of his peers also thought that Patton was stark raving crazy–especially when he started talking about rearming the Germans and attacking the Russians……Unless we were willing to use the nuke (and we only had a handful of them at the time), it would have resulted in an utter defeat—of the US.

            I know it hurts our pride, but despite all the bravery of our troops and our mass of supplies and equipment; the Western Front was the sideshow to WWI in Europe. We put the finishing touches on the war but the Russians actually defeated Germany and could have done it without us invading France.

            More than twice as many German forces were engaged on the Eastern Front against the Russians.
            We hade less than 90 divisions. The Russians had hundreds. They had more artillery, more armor (and better than ours) and had just beaten more than 4 million German troops. Patton’s idea was pure craziness. And you compare Cruz to him?

          • John Johnson

            Hey, we’re talking similarities aren’t we? Not line item comparisons.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Kinda like Bobby Knight . . .

          • tgnoble

            As far as I’m concerned the government should be shut down and never reopened except military.

        • 6660splendidday

          Do you know that $24 billion actual ended up being $30 billion?
          It is such a shame the right-wing lunatics don’t understand these things. As long as they love Jesus they don’t need to engage their brains…ever.

    • John Johnson

      He is saying what people are thinking. Calling McConnell a liar was great. Mitch is. I think most are. He also called out all the sheep in the Senate, too. Cruz wants change that I think the vast majority of Texans want; Cornyn is Panderer and a do-nothing. Just got about my 5th form letter back from him in answer to an email I sent. For the 5th time, it did not address the subject matter except in the most general of terms. Bring on change. We’ll grade it later.

      • Jed

        funny, that could have been the obama slogan.

        oh wait, it was.

      • wessexmom

        Ted Cruz couldn’t care less about you! And the only God he worships is the all powerful HE, HIMSELF and HIM! Our junior senator is a hollow huckster who feels alive only when he’s sowing disruption and reaping destruction.

        • John Johnson

          Those whom I know and respect who know him personally tell me different. Since you seem to be about looks and delivery as much as aims and intelligence, based on your prior comments, I’m going with their assessment. You ever seen me print anything about Clinton’s looks? She’s just a bundle of lies and what’s-in-it-for-me in a pants suit. Is that who you’re going to vote for?

          • wessexmom

            Then you should ALL join Cruz and ride off into the sunset together! Leave the rest of us out of his egomaniacal schemes to turn America into a theocracy based on his own image!

          • Indiana Pearl

            Many Texans want a theocracy.

          • Kozmo

            As long as it’s their own brand of theocracy. (No Jews, Hindus, Catholics, Buddhists, and certainly no Muslims!)

          • John Johnson

            Give me the name of a candidate without a huge ego? With regards to “schemes”, business as usual is obviously comfortable to you; it is not to those looking at a couple of the radical Repub candidates.

      • Unwound

        Cruz is Stickland on a federal level

        • John Johnson

          Oh, come on…that’s like saying breeds of dogs are different, but all in a specific breed are just alike. Stickland is nowhere near as educated or smart as Cruz; Stickland, and newly elected TP’ers like Burton, are Cruz follower’s and wannabes. They mirror his rhetoric but can’t back up any specific questions about policy with anything except Cruz talking points. “The government doesn’t need to be picking winners and losers” comes to mind.

          • Unwound

            the result is the exact same. nothing happens, no interest in governing, only making a nuisance of themselves.

  • Rules of Blazon

    In terms of imperiling the careers of other Republicans, Cruz would be as bad if not worse than Trump, and not a significant improvement over Rubio. However your primary ultimately shakes out, you Republicans are gonna lie in the bed you made.

    Justice.

    • WUSRPH

      Here’s some possibilities for a Trump candidacy….The type of stuff that makes some GOPers think the Canadian is not as bad

      http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/12/what-happens-if-trump-wins-the-gop-nomination.html?om_rid=AAXQ58&om_mid=_BWX1J0B9Ikk-t-#

      • Rules of Blazon

        Good piece — thanks. I think Chait is hedging a lot, though, and I wonder about the validity of this premise, on which Chait hangs an awful lot in item #1 of his list:

        “[T]he key fact to bear in mind is that most primary voters make up their minds at the last minute.”

        Is that really true this cycle, especially on the GOP side? I don’t think it is.

        • WUSRPH

          What is probably the most important development in politics over the past 20 plus years has been the death of the “swing voter”. Today it is virtually impossible that a person who supports GOP candidates will ever see a Democratic candidate they can support and vice versa. There are many more people calling themselves “Independents” today than ever in the past…but the fact is that most of independents are actually Republican-leaning or Democratic-leaning, with few really “I vote for the best man not for the party”….In most cases, they automatically see the “best man” as being the man from that party. This means that the whole election is run on the basis of trying to get “your vote” to the polls rather than real issues.

          • John Johnson

            There are not many swing voters because there are not many independent thinking candidates. Most are beholding to their respective parties and/or large contributors who are married to one party or the other. Any candidate who ventures too far toward the center is shunned by his party and threatened with retribution. Agree?

          • WUSRPH

            I think you should also add “that there are not as many independent thinking voters” as well. Too many people get too much of their information (if they get any at all) from only a select “I already agree with everything they say” outlets. It results in too many fixed opinions that no facts or argument can sway. Instead we have a lot of “I know what I know so don’t bother to challenge me” thinkers (sic). After a while many candidates virtually give up trying to explain reality and just “go with the flow”. Of course, people who automatically reject all official, semi-official or otherwise “reports” as being biased and slanted don’t make it any easier to discuss things.
            Good night all. I will be out of town and away from a computer for most of tomorrow…So have fun. Won’t it be great not to hear from me!

          • Jed

            the parties are in the center.

            you are not.

          • John Johnson

            I’m not right now, but if you are honest, you will admit that I have been close before. With regards to your statement about both parties being in the center…it must seem that way from where you are way, way over there to the left.

          • Jed

            it seems that way because i have a PhD in political science.

            you have never been in the center, unless you were alive when the KKK was in the center.

          • John Johnson

            Don’t try to reinvent how American voters view the political spectrum using as your guide some Ph.D. paper you wrote on the subject that was interpreted and graded by likeminded individuals.

            I start with what I see, and that is anarchy on the far right and far left. From there, everyone else is closer to the center. Elizabeth and Bernie are both inside you; Hillary closer…and then the centerline, and the void immediately on either side is jumped and you find candidates like Jeb and Kasich. Go further and it is a mixed bag. Trump has some philosophies similar to Bernie’s when it comes to Wall Street; Cruz does, too. Paul’s positions fit me the closest, but he can’t win, so I am right in the middle of the Trump, Cruz, Rubio mix…a long, long way from you.

          • Jed

            whatever dude.

            math is math. you don’t win a 50%+1 election by being on the edges.

          • John Johnson

            Whatever, dude.

          • Jed

            lost you again, huh?

          • John Johnson

            Lost? No. Just bored with your “I’m an intellectual; you’re a dumbass spiel.

            I liken your b.s. to some guy spending 10 years in college obtaining a PhD in busines, teaching business courses for 15 years, and then calling himself a good businessman.

          • Jed

            OK.

            meanwhile, back in reality, 2+2 does equal 4, no matter what you “observe.”

          • John Johnson

            You know what…you have lots of knowledge stored up about a way of analyzing the political spectrum that many are obviously not familiar with. I wouldn’t mind hearing some of it. Just don’t start out on page 312 of the book and expect me to nod my head “yes”.

      • PatBryanTX2

        Remember, he is still Cuban by birth, by Cuban law. He hasn’t taken care of that one yet, probably wants a backdoor to high-tail it to when the law catches up with him.

  • WUSRPH

    I think it sounds more like 1964 than 1980….Goldwater carried 6 states and Johnson got 486 electoral votes carrying 44 states and the D of C. But in any case, Cruz is not destined to be the next RR as people actually liked him.

    P.S. Can we hold you to this being “all the Cruz that is fit to print” in that you will not be printing more about him for awhile. There have to be other stories and other people to write about.

    • John Johnson

      This is why you should go start your own blog. Complaining about not enough threads is one thing; poking her in the eye for not serving up the topics you prefer is another. Not cool…IMHO.

      • jadedhaven

        I think he has a valid point, Mr. Johnson. Our attorney general is under indictment, it seems a salient topic for a Texas centric political blog.

        • Erica Grieder

          I agree with WUSRPH’s point that there’s been a slew of Cruz coverage lately. (And I also appreciate John’s defense of my inalienable right to choose the topics.) with that said my motive in writing today’s post was partly to warn you all that we’re gonna have to have a lot of Cruz on burkablog if his campaign continues to go well. His record is already familiar to most regular readers but if on track to be the nominee national voters are gonna be learning about it first time and Texas Monthly has a lot of expertise. I can certainly understand the feeling of being sick of talking about the guy–believe me, people have been asking me Cruz questions since 2012. But as I see it we gotta do our civic duty.

          With that said I’m pretty sick of writing about the Ken Paxton indictment at this point. Abbott’s trip to Cuba, that’s more up my alley 🙂 happy to hear other suggestions too!

          • I want more Cruzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

          • WUSRPH

            How about a roundup on the Texas primary ballot races just after the filing deadline on the 14th? What it might mean to Trump, etc. if so-and-so does not file for the primary; top battles; which ones will be particularly vicious (the race against Rep. Cook should top that list);how many MQS drones; how the lobby see it,etc. A good old fashion Burka wrap up and what to expect sort of thing. Allowing all the “know it alls” to dispute or praise your views, etc. There will be a bunch of these but no one did they as well as Paul B. and I certainly hope the current TM team continues that tradition.

          • wessexmom

            By all means, Ms. Grieder, please provide the links to those TM articles/posts which demonstrate TM’s “expertise” on Ted Cruz!
            With the exception of the occasional insightful piece by Ratcliffe or Mann, I’ve read only superficial commentary from a.) PAUL BURKA, extolling Cruz’s virtues and b.) YOU, vaguely assessing the success of Cruz’s “tactics” because by then you knew it was untenable to continue spreading Burka’s BS in such a fawning manner! Here, for example, are the EXACT (gag-inducing) WORDS Mr. Burka used in 2013 to describe Cruz:
            (1) Cruz is the rare politician who talks up to his audience, not down to his audience
            (2) He elevates the discussion with his intelligence.
            (3) He seldom resorts to gimmicks or applause lines; he makes his audience proud that he is on their side.
            http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/the-return-of-ted-cruz/

            As for your record. why haven’t you made any effort to discover:
            WHY Ted Cruz is REALLY running for president;
            WHAT he thinks he could accomplish in that role, given his penchant for disrupting/ destroying the status quo (which he would then have to rebuild at great cost); And
            WHO would be willing to work with him in office, given his lifelong penchant for alienating EVERYONE around him?

            And while you’re at it, Ms. Grieder, please be sure to give us a SPECIFIC list of what the senator has ACTUALLY accomplished FOR Texans during his tenure that doesn’t include any of his stunts or ideological phony baloney. You may have an inalienable right to write about Cruz (in an attempt to CYA, to some degree) but that doesn’t give you the right to waste our time going around in the same old circles! For a change, just give us the facts, ma’am!

          • John Johnson

            She is writing about Cruz because (1) he is a Texas Senator, (2) she has covered him for as long as any journalist in the country has, and (3) TM is in the business of selling magazines and online advertising, and info on Cruz draws more than just Texans to her observations and opinions because of her in depth knowledge.

          • Jed

            it’s a career move. write enough about cruz, stake your claim as the resident expert, then cross your fingers that he gets nominated and you get some national attention.

            the sincerity (and accuracy) of it should be clear once you recall that the preponderance of articles were about perry until he dropped out.

          • Erica Grieder

            I already get national attention. You’re correct that the Perry coverage has dropped off since he dropped out…awful suspicious, right?

          • Jed

            well as long as you’re not being defensive, i’m sure it will all work out for you.

            the country, enh, who cares, right?

          • wessexmom

            You misunderstand my point. I’m not saying that Ms. Grieder shouldn’t write about Ted Cruz. What I’m questioning is her assertion that she and TM have demonstrated “expertise” on the subject of the senator.
            I fail to see how her increasing number of Cruz-related posts have given her readers more insight into why Cruz revels in being the polarizing figure he is. Is that an end in itself? Or does Senator Cruz actually have plans in mind, beyond blowing up our political system, dodging direct questions and alienating voters who are not religious ideologues? I’m still waiting for Ms. Grieder to address such concerns.

          • John Johnson

            I had many of the same questions you do about him, and they are slowly being answered. I went to his website and went down the list of changes he is proposing, and agree with most of what he is pushing for. Others are obviously doing the same. Thus the reason for Grieder’s fix on him. She knows him, he is a Texan, and he is gaining momentum. I will just add that I think Reagan brought religion into the conversation just as much as Cruz is now, but back then it was not the hot button it is today. That’s my take.

          • Rules of Blazon

            Tough — but, on the whole, fair. A very good challenge. Were I the recipient, I’d choose to engage.

          • Beerman

            An update on Burka’s present day thoughts on Cruz would be an interesting subject?

          • Erica Grieder

            To some extent your questions are about interior states and that being the case no one is going to be able to answer them to your satisfaction other than perhaps Cruz himself, who you probably wouldn’t believe. But if you use the search box at the top of the page you’ll find the Feb 2014 cover story I wrote about Cruz, which is a good starting point.

          • Rules of Blazon

            What about her request to you to furnish “a specific list of what the senator has actually accomplished FOR Texans during his tenure” (excluding “his stunts or ideological phony baloney”).

            There’s an element of subjectivity to the question, to be sure, but it also squarely challenges you to articulate the specific, objectively-verifiable accomplishments of Ted Cruz on behalf of his constituents in his capacity as Senator.

            That’s more than fair. What is your response?

          • Indiana Pearl

            If Cruz represented, say, Wisconsin, would TM give him as much coverage?

          • Erica Grieder

            No. Why would we?

          • Indiana Pearl

            Answers the critics . . .

          • dave in texas

            Good point about national voters. Burnt Orange Report got jillions of hits in 2008 when people were trying to get a handle on the weird 2-step Texas primary/caucus system and how it would work regarding Clinton v. Obama; Texas Monthly is kind of the conservative analog (despite all the trolls’ insistence that it’s a left-wing hotbed) to BOR. I’m personally kind of sick of all the Cruz coverage, but I chalk most of that up to the animus I hold toward his rank demagoguery and his far-right policy positions.

        • John Johnson

          What are you going to say about Paxton that has not been said? The major Texas newspapers and TT hit on it every day, as do the TV stations.

          I would like to see her jump all over something like then AG Abbott accepting $124,000,000 from the federal government which was specifically collected by the Feds from big banks as suit settlement money for illegal foreclosures they carried out on many Texans. These funds were specifically earmarked to be returned to these Texans to help them purchase new homes.

          Abbott, as reported by WFAA in Dallas several weeks ago, placed the money in the general fund where it remains today.

          Last session a Dem Rep pushed a bill through the House to rectify this stinky situation. It went over to the Senate and never went anywhere.

          It was also something that nary a media person seems to have picked up on…except Brett Shipp at WFAA. You hear anything about it?

          What role should the Texas media, and more specifically, those covering state government in Austin, play? Are they there to educate the citizens of Texas? Bring us up to speed? Give us the who, what, when, where and why?

          Nary a news outlet has picked up the story since Shipp broadcast it. Instead we get rehashed everything.

          They are cheating the citizens of Texas, and through their neglect, or fear of or cozy relationship with the Republican juggernaut in Texas, are part of the problem.

          • WUSRPH

            I am not familiar with the case, other than the small story on it the other day. But I assume what has happened is that Texas got a share of the fine/award, etc. and, as is required by the State Constitution, the money was deposited in the treasury. That is the extent of Abbott’s powers as AG over the situation—other than to advocate something. The money will sit there until the Legislature appropriates it for some purpose, which could include the purpose cited in the article. But it was not appropriated by the last session. Just why is not said or even speculated upon…but I suspect that the leadership had other items on their mind then trying to figure out some system to determine who might qualify for the cash and for how much. That would not be a simple matter to do.

            The State had a similar problem with what to do with the cigarette law suit award since it could not just give it to all those who had suffered because of cigarettes. Most of it has gone to tobacco education efforts and health care and, in fact, some is still being handed out. It is likely that something like this will eventually happen to this money.

            As to why the “media” has not covered this “scandal” it is probable that most did not know about it. The Capitol Press Corps is many times smaller today than it was in my day years ago, but even then things often only got covered when someone told us about them. We just did not have the resources to go searching for most stories….

            In this case I would suspect that the bill author did not do a good enough job of letting the media know that it should pay attention to these particular one of the more than 5,000 bills being considered by the Legislature. In such a fast-moving and complex situation press coverage does not just happen. As with most things, the squeaky wheel (or vocal legislator) gets attention.

          • John Johnson

            Good points. When I am made aware of situations like this, because I happen to pay more attention to political matters these days than your average Joe, I get angry. It is the same as when I found out that there was over $100M of dedicated funds with Parks & Wildlife’s name on it being held while they were advertising here on this website for the public to make donations to keep some parks open. The general public does not know because it is not widely broadcast by Texas media. It grows old. If any media pressure was put on Abbott as AG to insure it made it to the jilted Texans, he would have made sure it was done this past session. No pressure; no action.

          • wessexmom

            Good point. You may want to consider contacting WFAA and encouraging them to follow up. Has the Tribune reported on it? Sounds like something they might also be interested in.

          • John Johnson

            I sent emails to Brian Sweaney, Ross Ramsey and the editor of the Fort Worth Star Telegram about it. Ramsey responded that they had a little blip on it somewhere and that was it. Brett Shipp and WFAA seem mistified that others don’t pick up on these investigative reports. They did one over a year ago showing where George Bush II charged $100,000 + $20,000 for chartered jet to speak in Houston at a Vet fundraiser put on by a questionable non-profit group that left an disabled military officer in Dallas hanging on a promised home. Shipp’s investigation showed that they were spending big money on everything but helping veterans and questioned why Bush was taking money for speaking at a vet fundraiser. It certainly could have been that he turned around and gave it away, but we won’t ever know because no one else had the balls to pick up on the story, let us know about it, and get a response out of Bush. Crappy journalism if you ask me. I send emails asking the same group about why they were not investigating. I got nada. We all got nada.

          • Beerman

            Agree

          • two words “tobacco settlement”

            “Only a small fraction of the money has gone to tobacco prevention. Instead, the states have used the windfall for various and unrelated expenditures. In Alaska, $3.5 million in settlement money was spent on shipping docks. In Niagara County, N.Y., $700,000 went for a public golf course’s sprinkler system, and $24 million for a county jail and an office building. And in North Carolina, in the ultimate irony, $42 million of the settlement funds actually went to tobacco farmers for modernization and marketing.”

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/opinion/how-the-big-tobacco-deal-went-bad.html

            Why would anyone think big government can solve anything?

          • John Johnson

            And people are wondering why so many are screaming for radical change. There is no accountability. Billions disappear and no one knows where it went. The Big’s cheat the average Joe’s and no one goes to jail. The media picks a side and simply becomes mouthpieces for whichever side they’re on. Political correctness has gone so far that even today some still refuse to call yesterday’s shooting Islamic terrorism. The MO is the same…the garb, the bombs, the stored guns and ammo, the Saudi connection, anger at a Christmas party…and the first thing out of Obama’s mouth is let’s take away the guns. Over my dead body, Mr. prez. Throw out the bums and start all over.

          • WUSRPH

            I will be happy to call the shooters Islamic terrorists when and if it is shown that was what there were. Right now no one, including you, know what their motives were. It could have been job related; it could have been a political protests against the US; it could have been many things. You ASSUME what it is because you want that to be the case. Me I will wait for the evidence.

          • John Johnson

            What is the definitive piece of evidence you want to see? If I was the DA in a hypothetical court, I would feel certain I had plenty of evidence here to get a ruling of Islamic terrorism. When did you first call OJ the killer?

          • WUSRPH

            I do not think I ever called OJ the killer. I did not follow the trial…..althou I know people who watched every minute. I had no interest is it. “Everyone” who was White assumed he was guilty. A lot of Blacks did not….I do not know myself.

            As to what a DA would do….He might have thoughts about the case and the reasons…but he would have enough experience to know what first impressions are often wrong…or, at the best, only partial answers. He would wait for more evidence before making a pronouncement…..You, on the other hand, jump at the first account and are sure you have all the answers because they are the answers you want.

          • Indiana Pearl

            I followed it closely because of the nature of the evidence – DNA, blood samples, hair. When the OK City bombing occurred, the OJ trial went into the background, so some of the scientific evidence was available minimally. I observed a number of mistakes and false representations.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Obama never said that.

      • WUSRPH

        As a person who fuly understands the meaning of the old saying:

        “The only man with a free press is the man who owns one”,

        I certainly agree that TM is free to run what it wants. I am just hoping for a little more variety. Cruz and the polls have been the subject of all three of the last posts. There has got to be something else happening in Texas and the nation. Even you must be ready for some other topics.

        • John Johnson

          Oh, I am, but…

    • Beerman

      Amen

  • Rules of Blazon

    Sort of OT but not really:

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nrsc-warns-candidates-how-to-run-with-donald-trump-as-nominee

    And while I’m sort of OT, I have to give props to Erica for this post. It’s objective and fair.

  • WUSRPH

    It sure looks like we are rapidly becoming a country that features “a mass murder shooting of the week”, if not “of the day”……Maybe that is something we should think about and talk about. But what is only 14 dead?

    • John Johnson

      Yeah, I suggest we stop this no racial profiling crap. A neighbor would have called and reported the San Bernadino pair’s late night activities in their garage had she not been fearful of being labeled a bigot and Muslim basher.

      • WUSRPH

        There is no law against him having assault rifles or pistols or thousands and thousands or rounds of ammunition. The police would have had to have found the bombs to have done anything.

        • John Johnson

          What do you think I was talking about? The thing that sets them apart are the bombs and bomb making equipment. Heck, I know several friends who have lots more ammo and weapons than these two had.

      • Indiana Pearl

        Were you a member of Hitler Youth in your adolescence?

    • Erica Grieder

      There’ll be a post about this later this morning.

  • WUSRPH
    • Indiana Pearl

      Several good articles in today’s New Yorker – especially the history of so-called “gun rights.”

  • WUSRPH

    Middle east in turmoil……mass shootings in the U.S.
    West Texas Intermediate—-$39.94 per barrel; Brent– (world price)–$42.49 per barrel.

    • I understand its our fault….

    • John Johnson

      OPEC wanting to cut production, and the Iranians wanting to increase. Who you think they are trying to hurt?

      • WUSRPH

        The Iranians are just getting back into many markets. Production cuts—if enforced–would keep them from recovering any of their former market share. . In fact, they could under sell the market to get some of their customers back. They are trying to help themselves, not trying to “hurt” anyone else.
        What you consistently refuse to realize is that the basic problem is AMERICAN overproduction……which has good and bad effects…The good effect is that it helps make us more “energy independent”. The bad effect Is that it drives the price down.

        • John Johnson

          Oh, I understand. Not sure you do. Our oil people over produce and drill as fast as they can because of greed. Once again, they failed to take oil patch history into consideration thinking that the good times would never end. They did…once again. Oil is sold on the open market to the highest worldwide bidder. What do you mean “lose customers”? What do you think the Wall Street hedgers do?

          • WUSRPH

            Many of Iranians “traditional” customers made new arrangements for their oil supplies during the “Sanctions” period. Iran is desperate to get them back. That means it has to produce and sell at whatever price it can get…

  • Sayed Farook an employee of the California State Board of Equalization….just another bored state employee?
    Democrats worry if Sen Cruz is elected he will cut their entitlement programs meanwhile bored state worker Sayed Farook kills 14 in Calif….talk about having your priorities all wrong.

    • Jed

      indeed. gee, what would be (would have been) an effective way to prevent tomorrow’s shooting?

      a friend and i looked it up. there are more NRA members than american muslims. jail every muslim and there will still be a shooting tomorrow.

  • 6660splendidday
  • wessexmom

    Here’s what Cruz’s freshman roommate from Princeton, Craig Mazin, told
    Patricia Murphy of The Daily Beast: “I would rather have anybody else
    be the president of the United States. Anyone. I would rather pick
    somebody from the phone book.”
    To read Bruni’s entire column: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/opinion/anyone-but-ted-cruz.html?ref=opinion

    Erica vastly overestimates Cruz’s chances to be the GOP’s nominee and she can forget about him winning a general election. He would be slaughtered, along with the rest of the GOP slate unfortunate enough to be on the ticket with him. But then again, Erica was willing to bet real money that Rick Perry would emerge as the nominee as recently as this past August. Here’s what she had to say about that:

    “Looking at the field as it stands, with 17 declared candidates, I think Perry has a pretty good chance of ending up among the top three candidates after all the delegates are counted. And if I were to place a
    bet on the eventual nominee today, I’d put my money on him.”
    http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/why-rick-perry-can-still-win-the-republican-nomination/

    • The same thing was said about President Obama, it is our turn now. How sweet it is.

    • Indiana Pearl

      Cruz’s solution to reproductive issues is condom dispensers in the men’s room of college dorms.

      • WUSRPH

        Since he opposes the “privacy rulings” In Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade, his position would allow the return of laws banning some or all birth control methods.

        • Indiana Pearl

          Pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen . . .

    • Erica Grieder

      Ok, fair point, but as long as we’re being fair, in the same post I listed Cruz and Rubio among the five candidates with a plausible chance of being the nominee.

    • paine sense

      Grieder reminds me of pundit Bill Kristol. His predictions are virtually guaranteed to be wrong. For example, he predicted in 2008 that Obama would not win even a single Democratic primary. Grieder is no better. She obviously panders to Texas Monthly readers by fawning over Texas candidates such as James “Rick” Perry and Rafael “Ted” Cruz.

  • BCinBCS

    Erica: “…a bag of cats in a clown car…”

    Excellent visual!

    • Dems would kill to have someone to vote for, but they don’t so they feel the need to run down the plethora of republican candidates.
      We have an outstanding field of republican candidates to choose from; whereas our friends the dems simply tell their voters Hillary has been appointed your leader.
      Dems need to learn to discuss issues then next dems need to learn to vet their candidates. It is our system.

  • First it was Reagan and now Sen Cruz warns Americans

  • Josh McIntosh

    Great. Hillary will destroy him at the polls.

  • Indiana Pearl

    The GOP is twisting slowly, slowly in the wind. Either Trump or Cruz would cost them many downticket seats:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/us/politics/wary-of-donald-trump-gop-leaders-are-caught-in-a-standoff.html?_r=0

  • oblate spheroid

    Fine by me. According to that Quinnipiac poll, his support only comes from the far right edge of the GOP: those who consider themselves Tea Partiers and those who say they’re “very conservative.” He has no support from those who consider themselves moderately conservative or a liberal conservative. It might be enough to get him the GOP nomination, but it won’t do nearly enough to get those middle of the road and unaffiliated voters in the general election.

    But as Erica says, it would be unwise to underestimate him. He’s probably the best liar the GOP has, and he’s a good debater. Would love to watch him debate Hillary one-on-one.

    • seriously?…what do dems know about lying?

      This is why I love the low information dems….they simply open their mouths and say whatever the DNC tells them too….

      “When asked, only 41 percent of those polled find Clinton “honest and trustworthy,” while fully 54 percent do not. Among those who do not find Clinton trustworthy, fully 67 percent say they are voting for Clinton’s opponent.”

      http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/opinion-blog/2015/08/20/dont-buy-hype-about-hillary-clintons-untrustworthy-issues

    • John Johnson

      You say he’s a liar; I know Hillary is; I know Obama is. The lies Cruz might have told, do not compare to the long line of them that trail both the others. Care to comment? I’ll start listing them if you like.

  • paine sense

    Perhaps Cruz will win the Republican nomination and maybe even the general election. But I find it hard to take author Grieder seriously. It seems that she writes about only one subject: How Cruz is doing so well. She is in an echo chamber of her own making. Her constant fawning over Cruz hurts her credibility.

    • WUSRPH

      She has definitely written about other things….but Cruz is more recent…..She started out thinking it was going to be Perry.

  • longing for hill country

    Sitting out is a vote for Hillary.

    • Jed
  • Garrett Menard

    He is unhinged ! If he becomes POTUS the USA will no longer be that shinning city on the hill . We have not had a candidate this unqualified since James Buchanan .

    • John Johnson

      Obama put the light out on that hill a few years back, Mr. Menard. Where have you been?

      • Garrett Menard

        languishing in the throws that OBSTRUCTIONISTS, like Cruz et.al. has afforded us from being able to progress under a leader with vision. A vision found unpalatable by those who can not accept a POTUS drawn from the ranks of the “OTHERS”. As such they, as good Knights Templar, must halt ALL progress; no matter to what determent is caused.

    • WUSRPH

      Buchanan was infinitely more qualified than George W. Bush and certainly more qualified than Cruz or Trump. He was among other things: an attorney, a combat veteran of the War of 1812, a state representative, 5 terms in the U.S. House, US Ambassador to England and Russian, 10 years as a US Senator and a Secretary of State. In fact, on paper, Buchanan looks more than qualified. He just turned out to be the worse president we ever had, prior to George W. of course.

      • Buchanan is not whom I would call the worst President ever – I think that (dis)honor is shared by Andrew Johnson & Andrew Jackson.

        As far as contemporary former presidents, we are far too close to their tenures to fairly judge whether or not they fall into the worst category. I think LBJ is the most recent that we could fairly judge his tenure as president and even then that judgment may be suspect.

  • What are you people smoking that are saying that Cruz is the next Ronald Reagan? Cruz is nothing like RR. First off, he is nowhere as good looking as Reagan. Second, Cruz wouldn’t know charm if it slapped him in the face. Third, Cruz has a whiny nasally voice that grates, unlike Reagan who had the voice of an orator. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg of superficial attributes.

    Politically, Cruz doesn’t understand how the government should work, he doesn’t understand compromise, and wears his “faith” as if it is a qualification for higher office, touting it at every opportunity. BTW that flies right in the face of direct action and commands from Jesus. Cruz has no real understanding of the constitution or how it works. And before the haters start, Obama fully understands the constitution since he is a scholar and former professor. That doesn’t mean I agree with his interpretation of it, but one can not say with any legitimacy that he doesn’t know or understand it. Cruz has done even less concrete work in the senate than Obama. He has less experience than anyone running but Trump and Carson.

    Reagan OTOH, ran the 3rd largest state and one of the largest state economies of his day. Reagan understood that politics is about compromise and that faith is not a job requirement for being POTUS. Reagan knew how to build a cabinet, how to work with speech writers, how to not only lead but when to follow. Reagan was a statesman before he was elected to governor and then later to POTUS. Cruz is not a statesman and will be a disaster in all aspects of the presidency.

    If Cruz, Trump, or Carson win the nomination; whomever wins the Democratic nomination will be the next president. I say that knowing too many who are R’s who have stated to me personally they will either abstain from the presidential vote or they will hold their nose and vote democrat.

    • “What are you people smoking that are saying that Cruz is the next Ronald Reagan? Cruz is nothing like RR. First off, he is nowhere as good looking as Reagan.”
      yep I’m voting for the next US president because he makes me……..

      • Indiana Pearl

        Also tacky . . .

    • John Johnson

      Good, Shelly, you have wonderfully demonstrated what is very prevalent and screwed up about so many American voters. You vote for the best looking, best sounding candidate. How about George Clooney? Matt Damon? These who you’d like to see on the ballot, or does Hillary really turn you on?

      • Indiana Pearl

        Tacky . . .

      • WUSRPH

        I think if you read the actual comments…BEFORE REACTING…you will see that Shelly clearly laid out the differences between RR and Ted and why RR made a better president than Cruz did. He did not say his vote would depend on how people look….Although you have to admit that Cruz is not really good looking. He kind of looks like Joe McCarthy in fact and not because of their similar approaches..

        • John Johnson

          Oh, I read it all, and have read similar observations. I just found it sad that so many now are pounding on appearance, voice, etc. several just today. How can they denigrate Cruz and give Clinton a pass when it comes personal appearance and demeanor? I have the picture in my mind of her throwing up both hands, screwing up her face, curling down her lips and screaming, “what difference does it make?”

          • Indiana Pearl

            Out of context . . .

          • Jed

            of course you do. that’s what they fed you.

          • John Johnson

            Is watching it on CSPAN “being fed”?

          • Jed

            so you’ve only seen it once?

            do you know what was said right before that? do you know what question she was answering? do you know what was said next?

          • John Johnson

            At the time, I was watching it live and was somewhat surprised that she puffed up like that, and the choice of words was horrible. Don’t remember exactly what was said before and after, but it had something to do with the State Departments actions, or lack there of. I don’t think it had anything to do directly with the deaths of the ambassador or the others. As far as other question goes…yes, I have seen it since on FB.

          • JJ to most dems, “it makes no difference.” It makes no difference Hillary warned us about Obama before dems elected him.

          • John Johnson

            On this, Hillary and I totally agree.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Taken completely out of context . . .

        • Indiana Pearl

          Grandpa Munster . . .

      • The lack of reading comprehension no longer surprises me, as well as the ignorance of history and human nature displayed by the rabid right.

        The vast majority of Presidents have been physically attractive, and this was true even before the advent of photography, film, and TV. Humans, not just Americans, prefer attractive leaders. If they weren’t physically attractive, they had to have something to persuade people to vote for them like a charming personality and/or charisma. Cruz strikes out in all areas. Cruz also doesn’t have the power base to take over the government by force short of that; his chance at being elected is shockingly low. And much like Obama, whom y’all love to hate on, he has no substance of experience to tout either.

        • John Johnson

          OK, if you are going to support human nature when it comes to electing “attractive” people, are you also going to admit that it is human nature to profile?

          • I have never denied that. We all “profile” people either consciously or subconsciously; yet that does not mean that people do it effectively or that it is useful. Profiling is a skill that training and education sharpens.

            Profiling by law enforcement, if it is to be an effective tool, has to be based upon behavior and not skin color.

          • John Johnson

            I guess the converse would be that if ignorant voters were educated and “trained” they would not vote for people based on appearance nor make snide comments about a candidate’s looks.

          • Anyone who is educated would acknowledge the inexperience, and lack of depth that the majority of the R candidates possess. – Oh wait, I did mention that several times already.

            The only R candidates that have the experience and depth that is needed to be POTUS are sadly being overshadowed by 3 men who lack the qualifications to run.

          • John Johnson

            I was not talking about any particular election, and I think you know that. I was talking in general terms about some educated person bringing a candidate’s appearance into the equation. It’s like bringing in someone’s race or gender as disqualifying, isn’t it?

            With regards to the GOP field, I don’t think you get it. Many are showing that they do not want a typical, beholding, go-along-to-get-along, “qualified” candidate who promises change but historically caves to cronies, money and the established way of doing things. Many are willing to take their chances on a outside pot stirrer. Not you, of course. I was talking about the ones who aren’t dwelling on appearance as a qualifier.

          • There are many scientific studies on behavior by psychologists and anthropologists on attractiveness and how it relates to employment, politics and success in life. So addressing physical attributes, as well as personality attributes is appropriate. Neither of those tie into either race or gender since levels of attractiveness, and personality are universal to all humans.

            Oh I get the idea of the outsiders of the GOP field; but I am a realist and until there is true campaign reform, until PACs are prohibited from donating money and unduly influencing both parties and controlling the elections, the change you and others seek isn’t going to happen. If you really believe Cruz isn’t beholden to the oligarchs behind the scenes I have some beach front property for sale outside of Midland at a fabulously cheap price.

  • Diane Sanchez

    I love it.. Religious and gun fanatic! Keep going GOP. Let’s call 2016 a bad year ! Only wish he quit calling himself a Texan and start calling himself a Cuban refugee which is what really is but I am sure that is not politically correct for his base! LOL!

    • I love it terrorist acts on our soil and a president living it up in Paris….

  • Reagan (11 mass shootings)
    Bush Sr (12 mass shootings)
    Clinton (23 mass shootings)
    Bush Jr (16 mass shootings)
    Obama (162 mass shootings)

    Maybe democrat leadership has something to do with it?

    • WUSRPH

      There is no way that your numbers are accurate….and that is because the US Congress….pushed by the NRA…has prohibited research into gun violence. The only numbers anyone has is from google-type searches, which are often misleading for earlier years where the information has not been put on the net. There are a few independent studies, such as a new one out of Newark, NJ, which found that the incidents or gun violence were underreported by at least 19%. There is also the work the NYTimes has done on recent yeas, which I posted last night. But everyone admits any numbers are tentative and likely wrong….But you have never cared about the truth any way.
      P.S. If you had read the NY Times study you could have hit Obama a lot harder…..They used a sampling that looked at gun incidents in which at least 4 people were killed and found over 350 for this year to date.

      • Indiana Pearl

        The NYT uses big words and math.

      • Ever heard of Chicago? There were more people killed in Chicago last weekend than by Muslims in Calif this week.

    • Gunslinger

      Charlie Adaway of 3623 W Creek Club Dr. Missouri City, TX 77459. This is you, right?

    • Gunslinger

      Is this still the number for you and Adaway & Associates? 281-499-1987?

  • PrattonTexas

    Bill Buckley said to vote for the most rightward viable candidate. I admire WFB and think is rule is still an excellent guide. [Note, his contemporaries have worked to set the record straight in recent years that he said “viable” not “electable” as is often argued.]

  • A real Texan says what needs to be said without worrying who it might offend….

    “I believe this nation needs a wartime president to defend it,” he said.”

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/cruz-this-nation-needs-a-wartime-president-to-defend-it/article/2000053

    Sounding more and more Reaganesque….

    • Quoting Reagan does not make Cruz anymore Reaganesque than Trump quoting the bible makes him a Christian.

  • Jim

    I am starting to hear talk from GOP moderates/establishment types who might back Cruz. Their thinking is that Cruz is far better than an insane Trump, he is by far the most intelligent candidate, and the moderates in the Senate will limit what he could accomplish. While these voters would prefer Bush or Rubio, they are starting to see that a sane conservative (Cruz) is better than an insane fascist (Trump).

    • Rules of Blazon

      If you are suggesting that there is still such a thing as a “GOP moderate”, please name five examples of consequence.

      Betcha can’t!

      • Jim

        There are 5 running for president….Bush, Kasich, Graham, Patacki, Christie. I could name dozens more in the Senate and House and state house.

  • Texas Take

    No one and I mean no one, triggers my gag reflex more than Ted Cruz. Texas coughs up this smarmy demagogue for the US Senate and once again signals to the nation we are the standard-bearers for narrow-minded teabillies full of ignorant rage. It truly is a race to the bottom with this oily schmuck who wants to be our “Pastor In Chief” and I’ve never been more embarrassed of my home state. Mess with Texas.

  • Now we’re getting somewhere, Guv Perry may be getting back into the saddle.
    Cruz/Perry 2016. How sweet it is…..

  • PatBryanTX2

    Rafael truly hates the United States of America, and its Constitution which he has so cleverly memorized by rote.

  • This why Sen Cruz will win in 2016.

    “The beauty of nominating Cruz, even if you’re a Republican who prefers someone else, is that it’d be as pure a test of the “bold colors, not pale pastels” theory of winning elections since Ronald Reagan. In the 35 years since Reagan was nominated, no party nominee on either side has been as ideologically dogmatic as Cruz is. Remember, Obama offered himself in 2008 as a candidate who was essentially “post-partisan,” a pragmatist who cared more about doing what’s right than doing what’s “left.” A better analog to Cruz than Obama is Elizabeth Warren, an unapologetically hard-left ideological liberal. But even Warren doesn’t quite match Cruz’s role on the right since she seems to get along fine with her Senate colleagues and her caucus leadership. Cruz, by contrast, delivers speeches on the Senate floor about how his own Republican “allies,” most notably majority leader Mitch McConnell, have sold out conservatism and the country at large by putting liberal special interests above popular interests. It’s impossible to imagine him doing much to moderate that message or “tacking towards the center” as nominee. (Except, er, for his coming embrace of legalization for illegals.) He’s too invested in it. It’s his whole persona.”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/03/lindsey-graham-let-me-drop-a-rino-truth-bomb-on-you-about-why-we-cant-win-with-ted-cruz-as-our-nominee/

    Because he believes in what he says and does. He isn’t a Hillary type politician who will say or do anything just to win.
    It is called character, something the left lacks.

  • Can democrats handle an election about the issues? No, Sen Cruz will destroy their candidate if it is about issues. Instead they will try to make it about “a war on wimmen” or racism” or “homophobia.” If that fails then they will resort to desperation and the old stand by “but Ted Cruz doesn’t look presidential.”
    Just like they tried with President Bush vs Kerry.

  • The tale of two brothers one assimilated into our culture and one became a “bored state worker.”

    “Farook got a bachelor’s degree in environmental health from Cal State San Bernardino in 2010. His older brother, Syed Raheel, who also attended La Sierra, joined the Navy immediately after high school. He served from 2003 to 2007 and was awarded two medals for service in the “Global War on Terrorism.”

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-syed-farook-tashfeen-malik-shooters-san-bernardino-20151203-story.html

    Which one served his country and which one hated it?

  • Sen Ted Cruz is already a force to be reckoned with. He did not wait until elected to repeal obamacare he did it already.

  • John Johnson

    Was there anything about Perry that was suspect to you, or did you find him to be “pure” and without flaw? I found him unworthy of consideration for so many reasons, I am surprised when you tout him so easily without hesitation.

  • 6660splendidday

    I read this today and thought it was worth repeating…
    The Internet has brought out so many talented writers and great thinkers. It
    is a pleasure to be connected. Thank you for this Post.. whoever you
    are. It is the truth.

    “There is a brand of Christianity which I call the Sears Roebuck
    Bible Thumpers. To the unenlightened, there is a version of the Bible
    which is different than the King James version. Sears Roebuck invented
    one version and folks quote it to me when I admonish someone for
    violating the Sixth Commandment when they advocate the killing of
    another human being under the subterfuge of the terms “death penalty”,
    “execution”. The schmuck will say: You haven’t read your Bible. When
    pressed, they will produce their version and sure enough, Sears Roebuck.”

    “Ted Cruz is a Sears Roebuck Xtian.”

  • 6660splendidday

    http://jonathanturley.org/2013/10/12/ted-cruz-dominionism-a

    Ted Cruz, his Daddy and Jesus Christ…..

  • 6660splendidday

    Watch This Navy Admiral Destroy Ted Cruz’s Climate Mythshttp://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/12/ted-cruz-climate-change-pause

  • 6660splendidday
  • don76550

    Cruz will be an excellent president, exactly what this country needs and I will be proud to vote for him

  • 6660splendidday

    Great Secrets finally revealed.