Robert Reich endorses Ted Cruz
Now that I’ve got your attention, read this.
Towards the tail end, there’s a Facebook book (January 20) by Robert Reich, who was Clinton’s Secretary of Labor. Reich makes it clear that he—and other liberal/left Democrats—should and do prefer a President Trump over a President Cruz.
Now, I’m not one to say that if liberals or the left like a candidate, it means that candidate is automatically a bad choice for conservatives. But Reich’s list of reasons for liberals and the left to fear Cruz constitutes what, to a conservative, would be a ringing endorsement. The items on the list can be summarized by saying that Cruz is brilliant, has character, and is a staunch conservative who has fought for conservative principles all his public life. And Trump? None of the above.
I suggest you read the whole thing. But here are some excerpts:
1. [Cruz is] more fanatical. Trump is a bully and bigot but doesn’t hew to any sharp ideological line…
2. Cruz is a true believer. Trump has no firm principles except making money, getting attention, and gaining power. But Cruz really does detest the federal government, and has spent much of his life embracing radical right economic and political views…
3. [Cruz is] Smarter. Trump is no slouch but he hasn’t given any indication of a sharp mind. Cruz is razor-sharp…
4. [Cruz is] more disciplined and strategic. Trump is all over the place, often winging it, saying whatever pops into his mind. Cruz hews to a clear script and a carefully crafted strategy. He plays the long game…Cruz’s legal career entailed a sustained use of the courts to achieve conservative ends, and he plots his moves carefully.
5. Cruz is a loner who’s willing to destroy institutions. Trump has spent his career using the federal government and making friends with big shots. Not Cruz. Most of his Republican colleagues in the Senate detest him. And Cruz is eager to destroy: He has repeatedly crossed to the other side of the Capitol and led House Republicans toward fiscal cliffs…
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
A headline post at TheRightScoop today: WOW Ted Cruz CONVERTS Iowa farmer ANGRY about ethanol subsidies to his side!!! [VIDEO]
It’s just Ted Cruz doing his fanatical rightwing economics thing. Y’know, where he prefers not to take money from taxpayers elsewhere to benefit the special interests of others, but to see an open market-place which leaves market decisions up to the participants in markets, whether those participants come from the supply side or the consumption side. Letting people be free to make their own decisions what they will offer at what price, or purchase likewise.
You’ve summarized in one post what I’ve been saying here and everywhere else since this campaign began. How an egotistical, unprincipled, liberal TV reality star blowhard managed to bully his way into the lead in the Republican primary is beyond any comprehension. He managed to seize on illegal immigration, the issue that really does unite a lot of unhappy, disgruntled people, only in a bad way.
Too bad Cruz didn’t pick up that banner first. Donald would be back home in NYC already.
Despite that Ted Cruz was caught on video in 2011 inveighing against illegal immigration and against the disdain for standing law which enabled it, he didn’t “pick up that banner first”? Or is it simply that the public wasn’t or isn’t aware that he did indeed pick up that banner first? So yeah, he did pick up that banner first and the public remains largely unaware of the fact. This is a misfortune, as you suggest geokstr.
Let’s start a movement for FOX to host the primaries.
Maybe Trump will sit them out.
I still argue with radio hosts who are pro Trump and they are starting to come around.
They want a Strong Man.
Strongmen usually have their own agenda.
Just got back from seeing Trump. Writing report now.
I have a very low regard for Jerry Falwell, Jr. He obviously has no idea how the Jesuits run their colleges and universities.
Report to be posted on Power Line.
geokstr:
Trump didn’t pick up that banner first, just loudest, and getting the most coverage.
The coverage he got initially was for the remark about rapists being among the illegal immigrants. The MSM was mocking him, but people rallied to his defense and that’s how it started.
I wrote a post a while ago (don’t have time to find it now) that analyzed Trump’s campaign announcement speech. Illegal immigration was NOT originally the focus of the speech, not by a longshot. But no one pays a particle of attention; they just hoist the flag of “Trump was the first! He was the only one!” and it becomes a revealed Truth.
sdferr:
I knew his position on it years ago, but he didn’t run with it, shouting from the rooftop and throwing it in the face of all the La Razites. It wouldn’t have been as effective as Trump doing it, because Trump actually knows how to make the publicity work against the media. The media would have crushed Cruz if had brought it up first, and being an obsessive attention whore is not Cruz’ style anyway.
I have a feeling it was going to be Cruz’ main tactic against Rubio, but Trump surprised him by sucking all of the oxygen out of the issue before he even got to play the card. Trump’s acolytes now are all claiming Cruz is an amnesty supporter, and nothing will convince them otherwise, I’m afraid.
The opportunity is now lost, unless Trump disintegrates himself with his own big mouth.
I hear Big Ben ringing out the news that Cruz scares the crap out of the Left. From across the pond and across the nation.
geokstr:
“beyond any comprehension”
Not beyond the comprehensiion of activists. For them, it’s simply SOP – an expected result from a typical application of the proven method to match the familiar contest at hand.
geokstr:
“The opportunity is now lost”
Not for activists, for whom the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist is always malleable. In that sense, the Right didn’t have the opportunity to lose in the first place due to the insufficient activism on the Right.
But in the same sense, if the Right fully commits to activism, the opportunity will be there.
Eric, I hope you’re right.
I have always seen that great mass of conservatives out there as non-activists; the usual descriptions are non-political, hard-working, just leave us alone to raise our families, etc.
I’m not certain the necessary number of them can be turned into activists at a sufficiently high level to counteract the fanatics and zealots that already are mobilized in the party of The Donald.
But I’m a variant of a pessimist by nature.
Good post on Cruz. My two problems with him is first that he has an odd sense of humor/awkwardness that may put off a lot of people.. Then again, so does Hillary. Second, he lacks Rubio’s ability to get straight to a point. He has to throw in a bunch of qualifiers that sounds like he’s trying to spin.
My question for you is which candidate do you think would risk shutting down the government in order to get a wall built at the border?
Cruz opposed amnesty from the beginning. The part that later came back to bite him was his support of H1-B visas. He wanted to triple them, or something.
I think he re-examined that stance and has reversed his position, which is fine. He doesn’t seem to want to admit it, though. I think that is a conscious strategy, and maybe the correct one given the perfidy of the MSM. It doesn’t bother me a lot if he “evolves,” since it is an actual evolution instead of a wholesale reversal.
I’ve only seen a couple of people bring up his H1-B support, and not very vehemently. I’m surprised it doesn’t come up more often, especially from Rubio.
boxty,
Have you attended a Cruz rally on the campaign trail or listened to him with an open mind during the debates or a msm interview? I find him to be very direct when explaining his position and wonder how you come to the conclusion he is ‘spinning’. IMO explaining you principles/rationale is not spin.
“Cruz is a loner who’s willing to destroy institutions. … Most of his Republican colleagues in the Senate detest him. And Cruz is eager to destroy: He has repeatedly crossed to the other side of the Capitol and led House Republicans toward fiscal cliffs…”
“I couldn’t have said it better myself.” neo
Cruz is my pick but the above begs the question; Can a President govern when both parties hate him? Cruz could certainly use the bully pulpit to educate the public but could he get anything done?
Parker: I’m just going by interviews with talk radio hosts. I’m in Cali so only big money donors get to hear Cruz in person this early.
I will be happy with either Cruz or Trump.
boxty Says:
My question for you is which candidate do you think would risk shutting down the government in order to get a wall built at the border?
Hi boxty:
I believe that the money to build a fence of some kind was appropriated, passed and signed back in GWB’s reign. Neither he nor Obama has been willing to build it, so unless the money was diverted to other purposes (which I think would be illegal without congressional approval), it should still be available. If it was diverted, a new president should be able to re-divert it from somewhere else, say subsides to Mexico, or advertising in Central America about how to apply for benefits in the US, or maybe even from the DOJ’s Division of Gender Norming and Hetero-Shaming.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
Cruz is my pick but the above begs the question; Can a President govern when both parties hate him? Cruz could certainly use the bully pulpit to educate the public but could he get anything done?
Depends on what you mean by “get anything done”.
Pres Cruz first task is to weed out and reverse every single Executive Order and Memo Obama issued. Then he needs to hammer his agencies from the EPA to the FEC to the Labor Board to the IRS to the Education and Energy Depts to reverse the job, economic and freedom-killing tens of thousands of regulations issued under Obama. While he’s doing that, he needs to be weeding out all the tens of thousands of leftwing radicals that Obama and Holder planted in every high level civil service position throughout the government that will be working to cripple everything else he tries to do. He can even force everyone who’s been delaying and thwarting the thousands of FOIA orders for years to shut up and start producing documents.
Notice anything in common about all these things? He can tell Congress to stick it if they don’t like it because he doesn’t need their approval.
I would also hope that if Cruz managed to win the primaries fair and square, Trump would back up his talk about loving America and he and his supporters would support actual conservatives at all levels of government, and make 2016 another tsunami election. We should use all this anger at DC to add half a thousand more conservatives and begin the Article V Convention of the States to Propose Amendments to the Constitution.
(sigh) We can all dream.
GB,
I think that a President Cruz would turn the beltway alphabet soup agencies upside down and shake vigorously. I have not been as excited about a presidentail candidate since 1980. And when it comes to fire in the belly, Cruz stands above Reagan. He is the pee on the sheets nightmare of the msm, hollyweird, academia, and the DC establishment.
geokstr,
A dream for sure, but one person, even a POTUS can not reverse the ship of state by his/herself alone. It will require an engaged and vocal populous to support him/her. I say him/her because I hope for a Cruz/Fiorina administration. That would be a dynamic duo.
@parker: You’re right and that’s why we need to hold Congress’ feet to the fire as well. I can see them going from being constantly steamrolled by Obama to finding their spines with a President Cruz because he wants to shake up the status quo (especially the Senate), and that is precisely what conservatives don’t want and shouldn’t tolerate.
Nevertheless, a President Cruz could go a long way towards dismantling the bureaucracy that has been systematically usurping Congress’ role.
ConceptJunkie — you are way to optimistic. Congress WANTS the bureaucracy to usurp its role. That means: a) Congress doesn’t have to do much work; and b) they have someone else to blame.