Did Ted Cruz just lock up the nomination?

Ted Cruz is officially the most hated man in Washington. His effort to hijack the budget deal was doomed from the start, but that didn’t deter him from engineering a high-profile political stunt to obstruct the process and gain a few minutes of attention.

What really pushed matters over the top was the way he did it. His procedural move not only opened the door for Sen. Reid to get several of the President’s most controversial appointees approved, it blocked the Senators from leaving for the Christmas recess. Instead of taking off with their work completed, they got to experience nine grueling hours of non-stop procedural votes – for nothing, on a holiday weekend.

Why would someone with Presidential ambitions deliberately piss off every influential person in Washington? Because Ted Cruz doesn’t care whether our Federal government ever accomplishes anything constructive again. He’s betting that Republican voters don’t either. He’s probably right.

This may have been the most frighteningly clever thing the man has done so far in his career. It was destructive of Republican goals, personally insulting to his colleagues, and soullessly self-interested. It was a perfect representation of the forces that threaten to end our experiment in self-government. Come next fall no Republican candidate will be able to say a word about it.

The base wants a confrontation with President Obama, who might or might not be the the Anti-Christ in their view. Next fall when twenty or so random nutjobs stand on a debate stage, only one of them will be able to say with absolute, photographic proof that he laid everything on the line to stop Obama from opening a pipeline of dirty, disease-ridden, criminal, terrorist Mexicans to your neighborhood.

His opponents will be forced to claim that they are more “reasonable” than Cruz. They will have to convince primary voters that they are more “electable” than Ted Cruz. They will have to agree that they support Cruz’s policies while trying to convince a frothing grassroots base that their methods of achieving those policies will be more “effective.”

None of them will have the balls to claim that Cruz is wrong, dangerous, and more than slightly nuts. They will have to try to attract more Republican voters by offering to be just like Ted Cruz, except more reasonable, electable, and effective. Snoooozzze.

Meanwhile Cruz can say that he went to Washington and did exactly what his batshit crazy supporters asked him to do. And unlike any other candidate on that stage he will be able to prove his claims. While other candidates try to reason with, pacify, or educate Republican primary voters, Cruz gets to say that he pissed off every powerful figure in Washington to fulfill his promises. This is what might have happened if Huey Long had lived a bit longer.

Never once has Cruz compromised his “principles” to make anything function properly. Here is a man who will do what the base wants no matter how stupid or catastrophic it may be. Come next fall we’ll get our chance to see what Cruz was trying to accomplish this weekend. Barring some major personal meltdown it’s tough to see how any Republican can hope to challenge Cruz to become the standard-bearer for the Neo-Confederate renaissance.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in Election 2016, Neo-Confederate, Republican Party
236 comments on “Did Ted Cruz just lock up the nomination?
  1. Thank you any magnificent article. The area altogether different may perhaps everyone get that style of details in such an excellent types of writing? I’ve a demonstration following few days, with this particular for the find such information.. DIELLE RESERVATIONS – Join our group and get fully booked!

  2. CaptSternn says:

    Not going to go off topic so soon on Lifer’s new entry, but let us have a look at this whole “torture” thing. The left is all in a frenzy because some democrats wrote a long report that somebody said something about what somebody heard about what somebody thought that maybe something was done.

    There are no charges, no indictments, no trials, no courts, no solid proof of any of it, and especially no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We are back to the assumed and automatic guilt and to hell with due process, facts and reality.

    It is so just because they say it is so. Guess what, that is not how it works in this nation.

    Now there were real issues at Abu Ghraib. People were charged with crimes. They were put through due process, convicted and served time and got other forms of punishment. There was no excuse for that behavior and I don’t see anybody defending it realistically. I am not going to lift a finger to defend that behavior.

    And I am not going to assume something else happened just because some democrat or Turtles or 75 or Crogged say it happened. Come forth with real evidenced, get indictments, put people from the CIA on trial and convict them. Then I will say it did happen and what they would be convicted for was wrong.

    Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law or just shut up already.

    • Crogged says:

      Except for the admonishment I’m not too far from agreeing with you. You never said anything similar about Benghazi, but I’ll extend professional courtesy your way. There was real evidence presented, emails from real live CIA employees and contractors, redacted by the CIA purely on the motivation to keep US secrets and agents alive and not to cover anyone’s guilty ass, just like Benghazi. So let’s add testimony, I’m all for it.

    • johnofgaunt75 says:

      I am all for an open and frank discussion about what happened and what we did. We have heard what we did from this report and it is pretty chilling. From the people who defend these practices? Crickets.

      So yes. I would like to see an open hearing on what went on and what was approved. If it leads to criminal trials, so be it. We have various laws that make torture illegal and if torture went on, the people who carried out the torture and the people who approved it should be held to account.

  3. Turtles Run says:

    Finally, some common sense on our policy regarding Cuba. Obama is opening up relations with Cuba after more than 50 years of a senseless embargo.

    http://www.sltrib.com/news/1959937-155/ap-sources-us-cuba-seek-to

    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      I know. I like this. But it’s practically a non-event, it’s so right.

    • johnofgaunt75 says:

      Excellent news and terrible news for Russia and Venezuela. Our imports are now going to compete with their crappy imports.

      Wonder how Jeb Bush will respond to this? Will be interesting given he was the governor of Florida.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Bad move politically. This will hurt Hillary or she will have to come out strongly against it. Miami is already protesting.

      • flypusher says:

        If Chris has his electoral map correct, Hillary wouldn’t NEED FL.

        Let Miami howl. That embargo should have come down with the Berlin Wall.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “That embargo should have come down with the Berlin Wall.”

        Hey! Something we agree on.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Gee Buzz…you should be offering praise for a politician taking a strong stand to make a change rather than worrying about the political ramifications.

        I would argue that no Republican is going to come down against this, but I’m sure some will, and I’m sure you’ll probably be on their side even though you know it is the right thing to do.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Congress has been trying to do this for a long time under different presidents. Maybe they will lift the embargo before Obama leaves office.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Actually, Congress is likely going to be the roadblock now. The President can only do so much. Congress has to change the law to completely drop the embargo and all complete and free travel to Cuba by people like you and me.

    • Crogged says:

      Crap, why would we want to change what hasn’t worked in fifty f___g years? Isn’t Generalissimo Francisco Franco still dead ?

  4. Hmm. Can’t help but notice how similar the aspersions Chris casts on Cruz are to those cast on Reagan by Chris’ intellectual predecessors. 😉

    BTW, has anybody noticed that whenever Congress does anything “constructive,” our national debt rises? $18,000,000,000,000+ and counting! How cool is that? Thank you, CROmnibus!

    • CaptSternn says:

      Obama did say that adding $4 trillion in debt was unpatriotic. Seems he thought it should be much, much more.

    • lomamonster says:

      When are you “conservatives” going to realize that the entire world is operating on various economic Ponzi schemes and that national debt arguments are just window dressing for the dummies in the store? Solvency is deadly to dynamic economies that need to project (and protect) power and influence worldwide. Risk can only be managed at an escalating and unknowable rate of exchange, and financial interventions to save failing economies would not be possible without debt management on an enormous scale. Place a couple of wars in there just for example, and the red runs rampant.

      Whether or not you are broke does not imply that you are not rich…

      • CaptSternn says:

        We have been trying to tell people that it is a Ponzi scheme for years, and Ponzi schemes fail in the end. We should be doing something to correct the course now before it fails.

        By the way, war spending is a drop in the bucket. All the spending over more than two decades would maybe cover a year of social security and medicare..

    • kabuzz61 says:

      It is all they know Tracy. Cruz is coming up in the polls so the liberals have to destroy him. The key is to not listen to the liberals. It didn’t work out for them this last cycle in a big way. So their ideas have been rejected.

    • johngalt says:

      The CRomnibus has nothing to do with the debt increases. The categories of spending it covers (defense and domestic discretionary spending) have been falling for years. The deficit is driven by “mandatory” spending, including Social Security, Medicare, welfare programs, and debt servicing, which, between them, are 70% of the federal budget. Neither party has put forward a serious effort to reform these programs to make them more sustainable.

      And the “aspersions” cast against Cruz sound nothing like those against Reagan, which were largely garden variety campaigning. Reagan had been the chief executive of a large state, where he was a center-right governor giving him a real-world track record to measure his rhetoric against. Would Cruz fit a similar pattern? Maybe, but it doesn’t seem likely.

    • M Simon says:

      Reagan? The guy who along with his henchman Meese and with help from the Supreme Court gutted the 4th Amendment in order to go all out on hippie bashing? That Reagan?

      It has gotten so bad that the police don’t even need to get the law right in order to search you. It they “thought” they had it correct? Okydoak. And how about secret informants to instigate raids? The informants don’t even have to be real if you can keep them secret. We used to have an abhorrence of states that ruled by informants and secret police. No more.

      You know the 4th was instituted to prevent general warrants like Prohibition provides. We started a war over that (among other things). And people wonder why Blacks (the man “beneficiaries” these days of no 4th) are rioting over a murder or two by police. We better hope they don’t start a war. Not that they would win. But it would certainly be inconvenient and bad for business.

      You can’t fight contraband and keep the 4th Amendment. They goals are incompatible. By design.

  5. goplifer says:

    Got a friendly email from Willie D of the Geto Boys. Absolutely made my day.

    He’s been writing a column at the Houston Press: http://blogs.houstonpress.com/rocks/ask_willie_d/

    Here’s a little taste of the Geto Boys: http://youtu.be/6IJCFc_qkHw

  6. rightonrush says:

    Looks like Jeb is in for 2016.

    via Facebook

    A Note from Jeb Bush
    December 16, 2014 at 8:59am

    Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah!

    Like many of you, our family was blessed with the opportunity to gather together over the recent Thanksgiving holiday.

    Columba and I are so proud of the wonderful adults our children have become, and we loved spending time with our three precious grandchildren.

    We shared good food and watched a whole lot of football.

    We also talked about the future of our nation. As a result of these conversations and thoughtful consideration of the kind of strong leadership I think America needs, I have decided to actively explore the possibility of running for President of the United States.

    In January, I also plan to establish a Leadership PAC that will help me facilitate conversations with citizens across America to discuss the most critical challenges facing our exceptional nation. The PAC’s purpose will be to support leaders, ideas and policies that will expand opportunity and prosperity for all Americans.

    In the coming months, I hope to visit with many of you and have a conversation about restoring the promise of America.

    Best wishes to you and your families for a happy holiday season. I’ll be in touch soon.

    • rightonrush says:

      So, looks like Texas is gonna have a Cruz, a Perry, and a Bush (after all poppy and bubba are living here) in the primary. I’m hoping for a new popcorn popper for Christmas….and a margarita machine.

    • johnofgaunt75 says:

      While I can understand the “Bush fatigue,” concept, I still think that Jeb will make an interesting candidate.

      I think the main question is whether he can survive the nomination contest without completely throwing out his more moderate roots. Both recent nominees for the Republican Party did just that and it killed them. They still were looked on skeptically by the right-wing Republican base while at the same time, they alienated moderates by suddenly shunning their moderate positions (or by nominating a wholly unqualified, uneducated and radical running mate).

      • rightonrush says:

        I think if the GOP is ever going to get back to what I consider normal they have to support a candidate like Jeb. IF he goes looney tunes like Romney did it’s all over IMHO. Without a doubt it’s going to be interesting.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        You mean Obama? Wasn’t he is less credentialed? Or are you just myopic.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Kabuzz, you may not like Obama or his politics but you have to admit that he has an excellent education. You may think he is an indecisive leader (hell, I may agree with you there), but you have to admit that serving as US Senator for one of the largest and most important states in the USA certainly looks good on a resume.

        Governor Palin, while certainly qualified to be the mayor of a small town or even the governor of one of the country’s most sparsely populated states, did not have the education or experience to become President. You can call me an elitist all you want but it’s true. I wouldn’t want her to be my heart surgeon and I certainly wouldn’t want her to be my President.

        I wish her luck in her reality television show career though. That seems to be right up her alley.

      • 1mime says:

        Jeb Bush is the GOP candidate who will pick up Independents and erstwhile Dems. There are a lot of disenchanted Republicans and they want someone thoughtful and business-like, aka “not Cruz, Oops, Bridgegate…who did I miss? Bush did a good job as Governor of FL, has an Hispanic wife, and appears to be capable of building concensus. One thing that his family will have to sort out is the role of his wife, who has been largely sheltered from public view. Personally, if a presidential candidate feels they have to oblige their handlers or their financiers and play to the far right when that is not their core belief, they deserve to get a thumpin’. If Hillary runs, and Jeb is the GOP nominee, I think America would have a more issue-oriented presidential race. THAT would be novel and most welcome for those who shuddered with the 9-9-9 plan…oops….The GOP passed on a candidate (John Huntsman) who was extremely well qualified but had done the unpardonable – accept an ambassadorship from a Democratic President. Reasonableness needs to matter.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Wait, what? Mime, you think Jeb having a Hispanic wife means something, but Cruz being a Hispanic man doesn’t? Not sure I follow you on that one. Are you saying that having a Hispanic wife is bad but can be overlooked, but being a Hispanic man cannot be overlooked? I have to ask because it sure came across that way.

        There have been a lot of disenfranchised conservatives for a long time as both major parties moved more and more to the left. Back around 2003 or 2004 a movement got started and we found a place in it. It’s called the tea party movement. We are not focused on a person’s race or ethnic background, we are focused on having a constitutionally limited federal government and fiscal responsibility by said government.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        John75, Obama was in the senate for only two years before he was picked to run. No executive experience, none. So bills of any import submitted by him. We get what we vote in. The biggest liar ever.

        Palin may have been a governor or a sparsely populated but biggest state in the union, but she has executive experience. I am not even saying I would vote for her, but her resume in regards to experience is there. Obama? None.

    • Crogged says:

      House of Bush v. House of Clinton.

      Game of Thrones-Americanized for public viewing to not offend anyone (no pretty naked people and “EIT”).

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        That is sad but I guess it is better than having someone like Sarah Palin in the office of the Presidency.

      • Crogged says:

        If you wish to remain sober don’t ever involve Republicans and the words “strong leadership” in a drinking game or a logical writing…….

  7. bubbabobcat says:

    As a life long liberal Democrat, I never thought I would say this, much less with pure Schadenfreude joy.

    Thank yew Ted Cruz!

    “Senate, Ending Long Battle, Confirms Nominee for Surgeon General”

    By a threadbare 51-43 vote margin. With 3 lame duck Democrats who will not be here in the next session voting for his confirmation.

    Thank you Ted Cruz for supporting President Obama and ensuring his nomination for Surgeon General and pissing off every single Republican in the Senate.

    Cruz is not stupid. But no one said he isn’t self destructive or so self serving that he has no concern for “his team” or the long term. Cruz’ team has always been a team of one. I’m guessing he never played any organized sports anywhere along his “education” process. Or got kicked off numerous teams. Or never picked. For good reason.

    Perhaps Cruz really is a wingnut flim flam Manchurian political version of a computer Trojan Horse virus/worm concocted by the Liberals to destroy the Republican party and besmirch the conservative “brand” from inside out. Bwahahahahahaha.

    Wingnut heads explode everywhere.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/us/obamas-nominee-for-surgeon-general-wins-confirmation.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article

  8. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    There has to be a palpable sense of frustration if you are a traditional Republican who would love to focus on making the country perform better.

    You are seeing numerous GOP/TP folks saying, with a straight face, that torture is not really torture.

    The majority of Americans believe we did torture folks, and I (sadly) think the majority of Americans are actually OK with that. However, I think independents and moderates would suggest that having GOP/TP folks say it wasn’t torture indicates at least a little bit of difficulty grasping the concepts of reality.

    Opposing the recognition of gay marriage is another of these awfully goofy positions. Independents and moderates have to be perplexed by the GOP/TP’s opposition.

    50 would suggest that things like this are stupid issues that do nothing but distract from the important issues. To that, I do not disagree. However, I think some folks struggle with turning over the keys to the car to people who publicly state beliefs in these goofy positions.

    I’m not sure folks are going to trust you to handle tax policy if you raise your hand on stage to say you do not believe in evolution.

    If you believe torture is not really torture and if you believe gay folks are tearing at the fabric of society, the complexity of most bills in Congress are well beyond your capacity to understand.

    • Crogged says:

      In the Seventies a President was pardoned regarding burglary and now we may need similar political cover for ‘insert euphemism for murder here’; but moral relativity in American society was caused by the secular humanists and the liberals. And Woodrow Wilson blah blah blah blah

      • Crogged says:

        And I forgot lying about hummers–it needs to be in here (seriously)…..

      • bubbabobcat says:

        What, that military replacement for the Jeep and Chevy Blazer was a scam Crogged? Was it because of the crappy MPG? Was it developed just to prop up Big Oil?

        😉

    • CaptSternn says:

      Torture was clicking on the youtube link Lifer posted up above and listening to the vulgarity for all of 15 seconds. Imagine if a person was subjected to that for a full hour or so. Some people pull up at a traffic light blasting that kind of music, that is torture. Went to a restaurant recently and was subjected to country music through the entire meal, that was torture. Yep, that’s what we now call torture because the CIA played music at Gitmo.

      I remember having to do this in gym class in grade school

      That is a stress position, what some here now define as torture.

      Gruber was correct about the people on the left. Those of us on the right never bought the lies to begin with. But democrats had a super majority, one party rule. That was torture inflicted on the entire nation.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        This is also a stress position Capt.:

        And this is torture.

        Quit downplaying criminal torture.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Only that isn’t what the report stated was a used stress position. There was no torture, much less criminal torture.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        The report said that stress positions were used including the hanging of people with their hands bound above their head. Similar to this:

        And again, this is torture.
        Again, quite downplaying criminal torture.

        We also shoved a hose up ass for no reason what so ever….other than to be sadistic and to induce pain and suffering. Again, that’s torture.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Over their heads, not behind their backs. See, you are just making things up again. Nothing new from the left.

      • johngalt says:

        Sternn, you’re not winning this argument. Stop trying to make it.

      • CaptSternn says:

        There really is no argument, John. There was no torture. Being in jail or prison, or even in the military, is no picnic. There are people that want to bring the U.S. down a few notches and give aid and comfort to the enemy, military and economic. Those are the people screaming that we torture people and cause global warming. Or was that global cooling? Or just climate change? Or seasons?

      • csarneson says:

        At least one of the prisoners died as a result of our treatment of him. Still in your world there was no torture. I’m not sure if you are just stupid or reprehensibly dishonest.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Feinstein gave out a report on her ‘democrat investigation’ which had no GOP members and no CIA representatives. Do you know where she got her info? Are you ready? From the GITMO lawyers representing the terrorists. That is just too funny.

        Just the other day Right on Rush said he would murder someone that hurt his family. But you liberals are all in a faux tizzy because terrorists that kill innocents are stressed. You guys are incredibly naive. Just amazing. Your hypocrisy is off the charts.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        If there was no torture Stern, then I invite you to bend over and have someone shove a hose up your ass and pump yourself with pureed food. Because that was done for NO MEDICAL REASON. The only reason was to cause pain. That is torture Stern and that is illegal but, apparently, you have no problem with it. So bend over.

        We also chained someone to a wall, doused him with cold water and left him to freeze to death. And it ended up that the poor man had nothing to do with terrorism and was innocent. That is torture and that is MURDER, of an innocent person. Again, you have no problem with it.

        You can claim you for “freedom” and for the rule of law all you like Stern. But everyone knows you’re just a hypocrite. I’m also beginning to think you are a sadist. You certainly have no problem with the torture and murder of innocent people, which is sickening and disgraceful.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        John75, where are you getting your misinformation? From the lawyers? BWAHH!

        Also, many people have been throwing buckets of ice water on themselves to ‘pay it forward’ but the poor widdle teworrist can’t take it.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        kabuzz

        They were not chained to a wall in a dungeon and left alone for hours to freeze to death.

        You seem to have no problem with torture and murder as well. Did you use to torture animals when you were young? Is that why you choose a cat as your avatar? Feel guilty about your actions? They say that such actions are an early sign of a person who is at ease with torture and murder.

      • Crogged says:

        Captain/Kabuzz. I’ll help ya’ll understand, this is like abortion, except with dark skinned, walking, talking, innocent people.

      • flypusher says:

        “Also, many people have been throwing buckets of ice water on themselves to ‘pay it forward’ but the poor widdle teworrist can’t take it.”

        This, fellow blog participants, may be buzzy’s greatest hit. It’s got something for everyone- extreme medical ignorance, hypocrisy, cruelty, an out right lie (the person in question was found to be innocent), and blatant disregard for fairness, rule of law, and Anerican values.

        Doesn’t it just make you weep for this country?

      • Crogged says:

        Fly you are in an echo chamber and just repeating what other people are saying despite any even gnat shit evidence to the contrary. And your evidence is just……lawyers…and…….and…..

        GRUBER

      • Crogged says:

        The fact the evidence were emails from real life CIA operatives doesn’t disprove that LAWYERS provided the emails which were just as damning if the same CIA operative showed up for the hearing and shouted from the benches. — -gotcha–GRUBER.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Just because you say it was so does not make it so, 75.

      • flypusher says:

        And exactly how do you define torture Sternn?

        (This ought to be really ignorant)

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        “If it is carried out by Americans, it is by definition not torture because Americans do not torture.”

        – Capt.

  9. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    Well, today Jeb is “excited to announce that I will actively explore the possibility of running for President of the United States (and forming a PAC so you can give me money)”

    So, who’s next.

    I don’t think Cruz will actually run. I think he’s smart enough to read the wind and recognize he can’t win 2016. Could he unseat an unpopular democrat in 2020? Maybe, if he can wait that long.

    Rand will run.

  10. BigWilly says:

    He’s just doing what his constituents want him to do. I’m fairly nonplussed by it all. If you look at the bills he’s sponsored they’re pretty mundane.

    Here’s a list from Wiki

    ” S.177, a bill to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the health-care related provisions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, introduced January 29, 2013
    S.505, a bill to prohibit the use of drones to kill citizens of the United States within the United States, introduced March 7, 2013
    S.729, a bill to investigate and prosecute felons and fugitives who illegally purchase firearms, introduced March 15, 2013
    S.730, a bill to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms through straw purchases and trafficking, introduced March 15, 2013
    S.1336, a bill to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to permit States to require proof of citizenship for registering to vote in federal elections, introduced July 17, 2013
    S.2170, a bill to increase coal, natural gas, and crude oil exports, to approve the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, to expand oil drilling offshore, onshore, in the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska, and in Indian reservations, to give states the sole power of regulating hydraulic fracturing, to repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard, to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gases, to require the EPA to assess how new regulations will affect employment, and to earmark natural resource revenue to paying off the federal government’s debt, introduced March 27, 2014
    S.2415, a bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to eliminate all limits on direct campaign contributions to candidates for public office, introduced June 3, 2014″

    Granted, some of this stuff like S.2415 is absolutely horrifying. Yet to the extent that it is horrifying it is also indicative of a clown like sensibility regarding Gov’t. Respect the clown.

    Really, kids, respect the clown.

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      BW…I struggle with this word way too often, and it is absolutely backasswards from how it should be, but nonplussed means the opposite of what we all think it means.

      At least, from the context of your sentence, I think you have the meaning backwards, and I should know, because I think I’ve only used that word correctly one time compared to the many more times I’ve used it incorrectly.

      Imagine a little shooting star…..the more you know.

      • BigWilly says:

        verb (used with object), nonplussed or nonplused, nonplussing or nonplusing.
        1.
        to render utterly perplexed; puzzle completely.

        Failed by the spell checker and my own understanding. I thought it meant “Unimpressed.”

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      I’ve always been confused by the specificity of S.505, a bill to prohibit the use of drones to kill citizens of the United States within the United States.

      If killing a US citizen in the US was not already prohibited, why specify the use of drones? Can the gov’t drop pianos on people and it be OK?

      Actually, I am not confused by Rand and Ted’s position position here. It was all political grandstanding.

      Respect the clown.

    • johngalt says:

      Cruz has submitted about 40 bills or major amendments, according to his own web site. This has resulted in two legislative accomplishments:
      1. UN diplomats who have been linked to terrorism will not be admitted to the US.
      2. The US courthouse in Sherman, TX, was named for Paul Brown.

      The remainder of this was tabled as the grandstanding that it was.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        JG, how many bills by how many senators is stopped? And then there is Obama. He did nothing while in the senate so I guess if Cruz did nothing, he could be president?

      • 1mime says:

        Cruz will find his legislative accomplishments rather limited. Few of his colleagues like him or trust him enough to sign on to his impressive list of bills and amendments. The guy just can’t help himself (-;

      • johngalt says:

        A lot of submitted bills get stopped. Even more if you are a firebrand unwilling to compromise on anything, ever. Would President Cruz refuse to sign a budget because it contained three items out of 3 million that he didn’t like? Would he refuse to sign a debt ceiling extension and cause a default because he’s morally opposed to the deficit? Compromise is essential for our form of government. Those unable to do so are ineffective. Cruz only got 56% of the reddest-of-red Texas vote. That does not mean he should get 100% of his way.

      • CaptSternn says:

        John, you pretty much summed up the democrats. Reid stopped well over 300 bills and they would not compromise on anything. They were so against compromise that they shut down the federal government for a couple of weeks, then tried to blame republicans. Obama threatens to veto spending bills because there might be just one thing he disagrees with.

        Reid stood between the house and Obama, and Obama could go play golf. Oh, he might stop for a minute to comment on somebody getting their head cut off, then it’s back to golf. Obama will no longer have Reid to cover him come next month. He is going to have a bad time even though the GOP establishment just undermined the incoming congress as best as they could.

    • bubbabobcat says:

      “Respect the clown”.

      Luv it BW!

    • Crogged says:

      Respect, as always, conditionally granted. BTW S.505 is probably a little more horrifying than S.2415 for we raging Episcopalians.

  11. Doug says:

    It’s hard to have faith in the future of this country when so many people think anyone who believes in the Constitution, and stands up for what he believes, is crazy.

    • flypusher says:

      I can’t find anything in the post that says Cruz is crazy. Catering to crazy, taking calculated political advantage of crazy, yes.

      I’m a pragmatist. As such I’m much more impressed by actual problem solving as opposed to “standing up for what you believe”. I’m highly annoyed when the latter becomes grandstanding that interferes with the former.

      • 1mime says:

        Cruz isn’t crazy. He’s self-centered. His ego will doom him. Pragmatism is in short supply in D.C. these days, but, I agree with you on this. Governing is messy and hard and problem solving at its finest involves compromise, not grandstanding.

    • goplifer says:

      I know, right? Everyone who says that Cheney should be indicted gets treated like a nutjob.

      We’ve all just stopped respecting the Constitution…

      • CaptSternn says:

        “We’ve all just stopped respecting the Constitution…”

        Many have, especially democrats and their supporters. But many of us have not, we want the federal government to abide by it, and for that we get called nutjobs and anarchists. Of course, it does limit the federal government and many on the left would not recognize the difference between a federal government that abides by the constitution and anarchy.

    • johnofgaunt75 says:

      Here’s the rub of it: No one really knows what the Constitution really means. Since the beginning of this country, there have been debates about the meaning of various phrases and clauses in the Constitution. Judges over the years have slowly developed what say, the Commerce Clause really means in terms of a modern, developed society and how to apply it. That has changed and evolved over time as the country has changed and evolved over time. That is how the common law works and one of the great benefits of the common law. Otherwise you get a society and laws that are stuck and archaic and not applicable to the modern issues and problems of the society. And what happens when that occurs? Well, violence and revolution is often the result which (at least in my mind) is part of the problem with civil law countries like, for example France, and why their societies are often plagued with instability, violence and revolution (France, for example, has had about 16 different constitutions since the French Revolution of the late 1700’s).

      Anyway, part of my problem with modern conservatives is their inability (or perhaps their willful ignorance) of this fact. Since our founding, both major political parties had accepted and understood that the law evolves through the decisions of the courts. They also understood that, for example, the First Amendment is not applied as explicitly written. Because if it was, laws against slander would be unconstitutional. They may not have liked particular decisions but they accepted them and moved on knowing that the real power to change society comes from the legislature and the passing of laws.

      But since the 1980’s, modern conservatives have stuck to this fiction that the text of the Constitution is somehow infallible and must be applied literally as if a judge is just a simple bureaucrat (akin to civil law judges). This ignores our history and our system of common law. This also leads to a system of laws that no longer adapt to the issues of society at the time. And that is not a good thing…at least if you value stability and peaceful change.

      And Ted Cruz, being a Harvard trained lawyer, should know and understand this. Or perhaps he slept through half of his law school classes. I don’t know.

      • goplifer says:

        Don’t worry about Cruz. Jesus tells him what the Constitution says and he should know – he wrote it!

      • kabuzz61 says:

        There is no doubt to the Bill of Rights. Why and how is clearly stated in history.

        Chris, nice cheap shot. What are you 12?

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Kabuzz,

        First Amendment:

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

        ——————-

        So, are you arguing that libel and slander laws are unconstitutional? Because, if there is “no doubt” to the First Amendment, then they clearly conflict with the text of the Constitution. Same with laws that require permits to march on public streets, for example.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz…come on buddy…either I’m misinterpreting what you are saying or what you are saying is so far out there that no one can believe it.

        No doubt to the Bill of Rights.

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

        Freedom of speech has expanded (and contracted) all through the years, to the point now where dollars = speech.

        The right to peaceably assemble has morphed into “free speech zones” at political conventions.

        “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

        Yet, I cannot attempt to build or purchase a low yield nuclear weapon without some folks in gray suits quickly infringing on my right to keep those arms.

        “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

        Yet, we are often reviewing what is unreasonable in terms of search or seizure.

        There is little “strict interpretation” of 200+ year old language written for a society that no longer exists.

        If your position is that words like “unreasonable” leave no doubt, then I have no idea how to help you.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        The list goes on HH:

        Eighth Amendment:

        “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

        What is “excessive bail?” What are “excessive fines?” Are we using a modern standard to measure what is “excessive” or are we using a 18th Century measure? That alone makes HUGE difference. One dollar in the 1700’s could be seen as excessive.

        What is “cruel and unusual punishment?” Again, 1700’s standard or modern standard?

        Nothing in the Constitution is clear.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        You guys love picking gnat shit out of pepper.

        Slander laws are not unconstitutional. Stopping someone from saying something slanderous is.

        The rest is just HT being, well, HT. He lives in gray land.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        “Slander laws are not unconstitutional. Stopping someone from saying something slanderous is.”

        ???

        Slander laws make it illegal to speak in a certain manner. That conflicts with the literal language of the First Amendment. A strict literal interpretation of the First Amendment would mean that such laws are unconstitutional.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        And by the way, what you call “picking gnat shit out of paper” is what is called Constitutional Law. It is not supposed to be simple or easy. That is because the Constitution is not clear and unambiguous. Why do you think we nominate some of the most skilled and brilliant legal minds to the Supreme Court?

        You can take a class on the subject online if you are interested in learning more.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Yes, Buzz, the ever changing definition of “unreasonable search” is a gnat.

        I do live in a world that is much more gray than black and white, and I wouldn’t want it any other way.

        It is stuff like this that makes people concerned with the TP getting allowed to play with the sharp scissors.

      • Crogged says:

        “Technicalities” and “gnat shit” depend on which side of the bars you find yourself.

      • johngalt says:

        “You can take a class on the subject online if you are interested in learning more.”

        Why would he need to? He knows all he needs to know about the U.S. Constitution.

      • flypusher says:

        Just the issue of metadata alone is enough to keep a few Constitutional Law people off the streets and out if trouble. The last thing we need is people with the dumbed down it’s-all-black&white world view trying to parse this.

        Sometimes the gnat shit matters very much.

      • Crogged says:

        I’m sure Mr. Cruz would say he acted exactly as Justice Marshall intended and probably not at all as Justice Warren intended.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Fly is now a Gruber. He knows what is right over others thoughts. The elitist liberals opens his truth box.

        J75, you have the freedom to say whatever, whenever, wherever you want. All day, every day. If you get fined, you have the freedom to go right back out there and say whatever you want. On your job you can stand up and say your boss is a dick. You will be fired but you have the freedom to say it.

        What is really, really amazing to me is all these fine constitutional scholars that just seemed to eke out of the word work. We are so very furtunate to be able to see your legal opinions.

      • Crogged says:

        Drinking game-GRUBER. I disagree with you because alkdjfalskjfsadlkf, you GRUBER person you.

      • flypusher says:

        “Fly is now a Gruber. He knows what is right over others thoughts. The elitist liberals opens his truth box.”

        Ad hominem is all you got? Surprise, surprise. If an issue like the what, when, and how of collecting cell phone meta data by gov’t agencies was so bloody simple, you should have been able to tell us why.

      • Crogged says:

        Thinking of the Magna Carta, Locke, Jefferson, Adam Smith, the Greeks or 2000 years of theory and great thinking-no-no-no, TERRORISTS should determine how we govern ourselves! Thank you Oliver Cromwell, we hardly missed ye.

      • flypusher says:

        You’ll need the titanium, nuclear powered liver to survive that game Croggged!!!

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Kabuzz,

        “J75, you have the freedom to say whatever, whenever, wherever you want. All day, every day. If you get fined, you have the freedom to go right back out there and say whatever you want. ”
        ——-
        You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of the protections granted to you under the Constitution. If you are fined by the government for what you say, the government, by its very definition, is limiting your freedom of speech. So, such a law would be unconstitutional by the literal interpretation of the text of the First Amendment.

        “On your job you can stand up and say your boss is a dick. You will be fired but you have the freedom to say it.”
        ———
        Constitutional free speech protection does not apply to private businesses. Again, you seem to have a basic misunderstanding here.

      • 1mime says:

        Ooh, you’re gonna make Scalia sooo mad!

      • CaptSternn says:

        Nobody has the right to endanger or harm others without just cause.

        75, interesting that you realize that being fined or worse for something means people don’t have the freedom to do that thing. The is what the PPACA is, the destruction of liberty and rights, the further destruction of freedom.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        John75, if the government were to lock you up because of something you said or might say is more in line with the 1st amendment. You can yell fire in a crowded room IF there is a fire. How is the government stopping your freedom to speak?

  12. texan5142 says:

    CaptSternn says:
    December 15, 2014 at 4:54 pm

    There was no torture

    .

    You are a fucking idiot Sternn

    • texan5142 says:

      A trailer trash, racist confederate flag flying troll idiot, and that is being kind.

      • texan5142 says:

        Ban me if you must Chris, at this point, I do not care, it needed to be said. The man is a complete idiot. Lets rectal feed you if it is not torture in your eyes moron.

      • Turtles Run says:

        We could simply ignore him. He thrives on the attention he gets as a troll.

      • CaptSternn says:

        It’s alright, Texan. I would rather Lifer not delete your comments. Let them represent the level of maturity and intelligence we have come to know and expect from the left.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        It seemed to work. We haven’t been attacked on our soil since. Is that a coincidence?

      • johngalt says:

        The report claims that no useful information was obtained through “enhanced interrogation techniques” that were not also obtained through other methods. So, yes, it has been a coincidence that there have been no al-Queda-related terrorist attacks on US soil since the CIA-directed torture program began.

      • johngalt says:

        Or, I should say, that the fact that the CIA did some pretty unsavory things to a number of people, a subset of whom were also unsavory, did not obviously prevent any terrorist attacks. Other intelligence gathering methods, once not involving rectally feeding hummus to prisoners or dragging them down stairs, probably did.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        kabuzz61 says:
        December 16, 2014 at 10:42 am

        “It seemed to work. We haven’t been attacked on our soil since. Is that a coincidence?”

        Um buzzy, sarcasm aside, I think your comment is yet another symptom of early onset dementia.

        Forgot about the Boston Marathon bombing not quite 2 years ago already buzzy?

    • bubbabobcat says:

      kabuzz61 says:
      December 16, 2014 at 10:42 am

      “It seemed to work. We haven’t been attacked on our soil since. Is that a coincidence?”

      Wingnut logic at its “finest” on display.

      I agree with buzzy. Eating garlic wards off the vampires like gangbusters. I haven’t seen one yet.

  13. Anse says:

    I’ve been waiting for the craziest of the crazy Tea Partiers to finally cross a line the Republican establishment can no longer tolerate, opening a schism in the party and a spectacle of a civil war in the GOP. But now I’m afraid the Crazy is so strong that the few remaining sensible Republicans will be able to withstand its current. I don’t want Ted Cruz to be the nominee. I’m no longer certain the party can resist his madness.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Y’all act like you have supported GOPers at all times. You all loved McCain until he ran, then you all started making fun of him even his service with the PTSD remarks. What makes you think any republican will follow your advice?

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz…I think you are missing part of the sentence.

        I think many people liked and respected McCain until he ran…and abandoned all his principled positions to appeal to the right wing fringe and ran around wanting to “build the dang wall”.

      • flypusher says:

        McCain 2000 was not the same as McCain 2008.

        And that’s a damn shame.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        HT, let me learn you something because obviously you do not comprehend politics. All candidates, even your worshipped Obama plays to the base during the primaries. You know this but try to make people think McCain changed when it was YOU who have changed since you are a died in the wool liberals.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz…there are any number of things you could learn me. Why, just today, I’ve learned that all I need is an 8th grade reading comprehension level to understand the current day ramifications of the Constitution.

        I was going to say “intricacies of the constitution”, but according to you, there are no intricacies.

        I’m kind a curious what you think constitutional law scholars do all day. Heck, under your world view, I’m not even sure we need a Supreme Court since all this stuff is so clearly written and easily applies 200+ years later.

        I know that politicians play to (or lie to) their base, but most successful ones on a national stage keep a foot in the middle as well.

        When McCain starts talking about building the dang fence, teaching creationism, and personhood amendments (and having Palin as a running mate), folks are not going to recognize that he is just lying to his base. Some folks are actually going to take him seriously.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz, just for you buddy:

        McCain 1998 – opposed ending affirmative action in Arizona, voted to keep a program of 10% of transportation funds to firms owned by women and minorities.
        McCain 2008 – McCain says he favors a referendum in Arizona that would ban affirmative action

        McCain 2004 – voted against Bush’s tax cuts because a “disproportionate amount went to the wealthiest Americans”
        McCain 2008 – wants to make the tax cuts permanent

        McCain 2000 – “But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”
        McCain 2008 – “I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned” and supports amending the U.S. Constitution to ban abortion

        McCain 2000 – declined to sign pledge to not add any new taxes or increase taxes
        McCain 2008 – signed the pledge

        McCain 2002 – one of only two GOP to vote against repealing the estate tax
        McCain 2008 – repeal the estate tax

        McCain 2000 – deficit reduction was key
        McCain 2008 – tax cuts are key

        McCain 2004 – what the United States should do if the “Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?” McCain responded, “I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq

        McCain 2008 – “Make it a hundred. We’ve been in Japan for 60 years, we’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me.

        McCain 2000 – “Who’s Sarah Palin”
        McCain 2008 – Sarah Palin is a heartbeat away from the presidency.

        McCain of 2000 beats Obama in 2008. Sadly, that McCain had gone away.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “… and personhood amendments …”

        So again you are against the 14th amendment.

        HT, the U.S. Constitution is written in English. For most of us here, that is our first language, maybe our only language, so we don’t need it interpreted or translated for us to understand it.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern..someday, I hope as half as smart as you think you are.

      • CaptSternn says:

        You know something, HT? I am not usually a grammar Nazi, but that there was funny, I don’t care who you are.

      • flypusher says:

        “HT/Gruber, if conservatives are so ‘out of touch’ why were the democrat’s asses whipped this election cycle?”

        Isn’t kitty soooo clever with his Gruber remarks?? No need to counter any data or analysis with data or analysis of your own, just call that know-it-all a Gruber. Perfect.

        Two major factors buzzy, which people here and elsewhere have predicted well BEFORE that fact: 1) The party of a current President into a 2nd term almost always losses seats in Congress in the mid-term election and 2) Hard luck geography-The Dems had more seats to defend in the Senate, and many of them in red states.

        FYI, the Senate seats in play for 2016 do not favor the GOP. Plus the Dem base has better turnout in Presidential election years.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Um, HT, conservatives liked McCain even less than we liked Romney, and we didn’t really like Romney.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        The country liked McCain 2000 better than they liked Romney.

        Your inability to support a McCain 2000 is a pretty good example of how out of touch your positions are with the rest of the country.

      • CaptSternn says:

        McCain wasn’t the candidate the GOP nominated in 2000, so he was never up for the general election and he was not elected as president in 2000. Facts and reality are not your friends, HT.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Sigh…thanks for participating in an informative discussion of your views.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        HT/Gruber, if conservatives are so ‘out of touch’ why were the democrat’s asses whipped this election cycle? Maybe, just maybe, and we all know you are the smartest in the room, at least that is what you think, maybe your views are not in line with a majority of americans.

  14. flypusher says:

    Go ahead, nominate Cruz, I TRIPLE DOG DARE YA!!!!

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLZj3zOUZNs

    • Turtles Run says:

      No FLy, No. Remember Sternn said the people wanted a “reel” conservative to vote for. Never mind that none of them could make it out the primary, if only they were able to make it to the general election people could have been able to bask in the wonderfulness of their points of view.

      Who didn’t want an electrified border fence, the chance to booo our service members. and cheer the death of a sick person. Plus those Santorum sweater vests looked pretty snazzy. Then there was Rick Perry with his good hair, tea party cred, and….uhhh..and uhhh…I forgot the third thing.

  15. kabuzz61 says:

    Even though I think Cruz is a very intelligient and accomplished man, I do think he unnecessarily prodded the GOP it seems just to do it. He would have done better to suggest conservatives call our representatives to change leadership, that is where an effective use of time would have been used. There is no reason to pass a CROMIBUS through most of next year. I hope the new congress can do something about that.

    • texan5142 says:

      Agreed kabuzz he is very intelligent and a narcissist. I believe this describes Cruz accurately and explains his behavior as a senator.

      Narcissistic Personality Disorder

      Individuals with narcissistic personality disorder have a very distorted sense of self. They are generally “grandiose”, which means they have an inflated or exaggerated opinion of their positive traits and / or abilities. Even though some are very attractive, highly intelligent, or exceptionally talented, narcissists typically regard themselves as elite or exceptional compared to everyone else. Regardless of their actual social standing, they perceive themselves as very important – and expect others to view them as such.

      http://www.elementsbehavioralhealth.com/mental-health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/

    • kabuzz61 says:

      I think Obama fits that more then Cruz.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        It may have something to do with being a minority. When you’re an outstanding minority, people seem so surprised and delighted, as if they’ve never come across such a thing, they overdo the praise, and it goes to your head.

      • texan5142 says:

        Well I believe that all politicians are narcissistic to a varying degree. I think it is a prerequisite for getting into national politics in the first place.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Definitely a self serving bunch with a high end ego no matter what race or ethnicity.

    • mary says:

      That’s part (part) of Cruz’ problem – judgment. Presidents rarely get to do things over, and those who “grand-stand” become media fodder – as they should. Personally, I think we have more important issues for GOPlifer to address. Put ’em out there, GOPlifer!

    • Crogged says:

      First term Senator and law school graduate running for President means ‘inexperienced and lacking leadership experience’ unless fill in the blank here.

  16. Creigh says:

    “20 or so random nutjobs standing on a stage.” Us Democrats might not be too enthusiastic about what we see coming down the track, but I just don’t see how the Republicans can possibly let that happen again.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      The democrats here never focus on the democrats. Denial is there friend. I think the circus is going to be on the dem side this year. Already there is a war between the far left and the left. It’s going to be a good one.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        I don’t know Buzz…we had competing circuses in 2008, and your circus needed a much bigger clown car.

        I don’t see that changing in 2016.

  17. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    As someone who tends to vote for Democrat candidates, I’m always worried about them as an anything but organized political party.

    Despite the tidy Blue Wall Chris mentioned in a previous post, we are going to be coming off eight years of a generally unpopular president perceived by most as being at least moderately ineffective. Heck, the man couldn’t even ruin the economy despite his best efforts to do so.

    The current front runner for the 2016 Democrat nomination is wildly unpopular. Many liberals don’t trust and the GOP/TP have a pretty active hate for Hillary. Few successful candidates have as high negatives as does Hillary.

    For at least the last eight years, the GOP’s candidates’ numbers drop as he (or she) ran to the right. No hard right position polled as well as a more moderate (or more sane) position. Thus, in the end, the GOP/TP had to at least sound more moderate (well, as moderate as one can sound while wanting to recognize the personhood of a fertilized egg and an amendment outlawing gay marriage).

    Is Cruz just this election cycles’ Huckabee or Bachmann, destined to flame out when the overly moderate independents get a good listen to his brand of government?

    Or, is someone so passionately (possibly pathologically) driven and smart able to actually change the landscape? Does someone who is willing to burn the house down change the whole discussion so that what is normally a blue or a red state become slightly less meaningful?

    Cruz isn’t going to flip California or New York (or any of New England), but Obama won Florida, Virginia, and Ohio by less than three percent.

    Other than North Carolina (and Alaska), if Romney won the state, he won it by over 10%, and typically it was 20% or 30%. Candidate Cruz carries all of those states just because he has an “R” after his name.

    Does Candidate Cruz’s brand of crazy so alter the race that Virginia, Ohio, and Florida come into play, and then he picks up enough Hispanic voters to bring in New Mexico? A vigorous anti-gun control campaign and a position of favor of legalized pot brings Colorado in play.

    Does Cruz chutzpah resonate with folks in Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota enough to crack them his way?

    Part of me believes we’ve seen this story before, and after a brief frenzy and a love fest on Fox, saner heads prevail and the voters turn against it.

    However, I’m worried that we’ve not seen this kind of burn down the house crazy, and maybe there are more Sterns and Buzzes out there than anyone ever imagined.

    Scary thoughts man.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      HT, it doesn’t matter if Cruz gets the nomination or not. What is certain is not only is Obama’s negatives hight, but the dem’s for blindly following him. All the Stern’s and Buzzies want is fiscal sanity, laws being enforced and our law makes held accountable for their actions.

      • texan5142 says:

        CaptSternn says:
        December 15, 2014 at 7:55 am
        . That is after republicans brought us to a near balanced budget, though they did mess up a little after Bush43 was elected.

        A little bit? 9/11, two wars, torture, recession, that is ” they did mess up a little after Bush43 was elected.”in your eyes. WTF is wrong with you?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, we actually had two recessions while the republicans were running things with the dot com crash and 9/11/2001. They weren’t major because republicans didn’t put their boots on the neck of the economy.

        Bush43 inherited two ongoing wars, one that started when Bush41 was president and the other while Clinton was president. Then we finally got a president that took both of them seriously.

        Maybe you are one of those people that said al Qaeda wasn’t behind the attacks, Bush43 just wanted a reason to invade Afghanistan to establish a natural gas pipeline and the attacks were really an inside job?

        There was no torture.

        Deficits did increase, and then there was Medicare Part D. So yes, they did mess up a little bit. Nothing as serious as what democrats have done and presided over.

    • CaptSternn says:

      At least you finally acknowledge that the democrats have been running things for the past eight years. Eight years ago the economy was growing at about 4% and unemployment was at 4.6%. That is after republicans brought us to a near balanced budget, though they did mess up a little after Bush43 was elected. They brought us through two recessions, the dot com crash and 9/11/2001, without much economic problems at all.

      They got us through the 2001 attacks, toppled the Hussein regime and had al Qaeda defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the run in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Their last deficit was $161 billion.

      That was eight years ago, HT. How have things been since then?

      • Crogged says:

        Absolutely horrible since then. Bin Laden is dead, the stock market recovered losses, unemployment fell due to strong growth from private enterprise and lesser from government, more people have affordable medical insurance-everything is just terrible.

      • texan5142 says:

        I imagine everything looks horrible when one views the world threw the fabric of a confederate flag.

      • texan5142 says:

        through not threw….. . need more coffee

      • johngalt says:

        You forgot to mention that Obama is so incompetent that his attempts to destroy the oil industry resulted in the highest domestic production in four decades while his attempts to destroy the health care industry resulted in a significant drop in the uninsured population and the lowest health care inflation rates in at least two decades. Tragic.

      • Crogged says:

        Just too much bad stuff to contemplate, I was sad and unable to finish.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Man Stern…there is not a person (or at least a sane person) on the planet that would take the 2006 trajectory and impending housing implosion over the 2014 trajectory.

        Stern…I think I’m slowly coming around to understanding your way of thinking. It is a correlation/causation issue.

        I’m highly curious just what you think the dastardly Dems did in 2007 that caused the economic free fall. You seem to be under the impression that things were both hunky and dory with the economy until that point.

        Buzz…let me know when your fiscal conservatives decide to let women decide what to do with their uterus and what gay folks do in front of a judge.

      • Crogged says:

        Then there’s all that inflation not happening-but will! I swear, it’s coming! Hold your breath! Longer. Still holding it.

        Ok, that’s not happening, but in thirty years my static view of accumulating deficits and GDP will make havoc for somebody else. Because I’m sensible and sober in my nice grey suit and not because I’m worried about my current return on non-productive financial assets.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Homer asked: I’m highly curious just what you think the dastardly Dems did in 2007 that caused the economic free fall. You seem to be under the impression that things were both hunky and dory with the economy until that point.

        Don’t do that. I asked the same question and he replied the passing of Obamacare in 2010.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        HT, conservatives fiscally, not as many social conservatives as you would think. Did you know the Koch bros. are socially liberal? Your tendency to compare apples and oranges to make a faux point is boring.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz…you “fiscal conservatives” sure do seem to only support politicians who really like fertilized eggs and who seem to toss around the word “abomination” when talking about gay folks.

        When you folks start putting some fiscal conservatives into office that won’t sign on with a personhood amendment, we’ll talk about apples and oranges.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Buzzy blathered: Did you know the Koch bros. are socially liberal?

        They are a couple of a$$holes too. They are so socially liberal they keep supporting candidates that are not socially liberal.

        That also claim to be Libertarians but they are not true libertarians they are Ayn Rand pseudo-libertarians that pretend to have a political ideology other than “i want to be a d-bag”.

        It is good to know you are continuing you career as a sheep or is it a parrot since you simply repeat without thinking everything you are told too.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        HT, I stand by what I said. Conservatives don’t care about social issues on the grand scheme of things. We have our beliefs, but they are our beliefs. Most are just like that. As democrats say often, “personally I am against abortion, but my personal belief doesn’t matter.”

        You are fed this bullshit about TEA Party people and conservatives and you just drink it in. But when conservatives say they are for personal responsibility and accountability that goes for social issues also.

        This whole birth control crisis your side invented seemed to only convince you.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz…I get fed a lot of bullshit…you just may be getting confused about who is doing the dispensing.

        You have said you would feel obligated to vote against allow recognition of gay marriage. You have said it would be very hard for you to vote for a pro-choice politician or someone who supports gay marriage.

        If what you say is true, it is one heck of a massive coincidence that all your fiscally conservative candidates line up to sign personhood amendments and haven’t yet evolved about gay marriage.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        First off HT I hope you know the difference between a private citizen and some who represents constituents of different beliefs.

        I said if issues that I view as immoral and it is put to a vote I would vote for morality every time. The key is if it comes up to vote. Like the many states that had a vote on homosexual/sodomy marriage and the anti vote was overwhelming so they ran to the courts.

      • Crogged says:

        Hate the sin, vote against the sinner, talk about ‘social liberalness’.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz…like to think I understand personal values versus the political agendas of politicians, but you are arguing that it is nothing but a huge coincidence that almost all of your supported candidates seem to be awfully interested in social conservative issues.

        There are plenty of pro-choice and pro-gay marriage TP members. However, your politicians do not reflect that.

        Here, I’ll make a list of the pro-choice and pro-gay marriage Tea Party politicians:

        1.
        2.
        3.
        4.
        5.
        6.
        7.
        8.
        9.
        10.
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        1000.

        So, there ya go, a list of fiscally conservative Tea Party politicians who don’t care about social issues.

      • Crogged says:

        ‘Socially liberal’ for the typical Texas TP, means ‘not in favor of enacting further laws regarding illegality of sodomy’ and allowing Methodists to vote.

      • flypusher says:

        “HT, conservatives fiscally, not as many social conservatives as you would think.”

        Yet we have all this constant litigation over laws restricting things like abortion and same sex marriage. Those laws weren’t passed by liberals.

        Once again, reality contradicts you, kitty.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “Those laws weren’t passed by liberals.”

        People that overwhelmingly voted for Obama and other democrats while voting against same-sex marriage are now not liberals or supporters of democrats? Really?

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Ah Stern…if your arguments weren’t intellectually dishonest, you would have no arguments at all.

        Since the historic TP electoral juggernaut of 2010, let us take a look at what has happened with abortion restrictions. Well, I’ll be darned. All these fiscal conservatives being voted into office lead to a historic number of proposed restrictions on abortion in 2011, followed right along with more in 2012, 2013, and 2014.

        Oddly, these restrictions are not being proposed by Democrats, but you know that already (since you’ve said many times that the left likes to kill babies and that the left loves slavery which is somehow like abortion).

        Yes, you are correct that the voters in California (a noted liberal state) voted against recognizing gay marriage, but you also know that such a provision was not brought by Democrats.

        You also know that the anti-gay marriage positions knocked around in the states are also not originating with Democrats in office.

        There is a fine history in the US with people taking argumentative positions, it is just a whole lot better for everyone when those people are intellectually honest in their arguments.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I didn’t ay anything about abortion, HT. And yes, liberals did vote for Obama and democrats and against same-sex marriage.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Just because I find it hard to resist poking at a completely indefensible position, I recognize you are fine with states having the power to deny recognition of same sex marriage just like you are fine with states having the power to deny recognition of inter-racial marriage.

        This is one of those things you were mentioning over the weekend about how having consistent principals is a good thing and something to be lauded.

        Others might break out a hobgoblin quote regarding such foolish consistency.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…are you on autopilot and not even reading your or other’s comments at this point.

        Your line of discussion was in response to,

        “Yet we have all this constant litigation over laws restricting things like abortion and same sex marriage. Those laws weren’t passed by liberals.”

        Those laws were not proposed nor passed by liberals, but again, you know that, you are just trying to tap dance your pretty little legs on the head of a pin.

      • CaptSternn says:

        They were passed by liberals.

        People that enter into same-sex marriages, even in Texas, are not being stripped of their citizenship (natural born citizens) or being sent to prison.

      • CaptSternn says:

        And don’t go getting all uppity with me, HT. Do you support group marriages? Polygamous marriages? How about farther and daughter marriages? Mother and son marriages? Brother and sister marriages? Let us all hear where you draw the line, where you would deny the rights of others.

        You really don’t want to do this, so you should just walk away at this point.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Yes Stern…let me get scared of your argument that it is perfectly OK for the state to refuse to recognize the marriages interracial couples.

        OK, my loins are sufficiently girded for this blindingly beautiful argument that you are going to make as to why the state should have the ability to deny recognition of inter-racial marriage.

        Besides, we’ve already established that I really do not care what consenting adults do, be they same sex, groups, or otherwise. You however, seem to struggle with a slippery slope that starts with interracial couples.

        However, I’m a bit concerned that your mind immediately into some dark territory when attempting to defend the state’s ability to restrict inter-racial marriage.

        So, loins are girded up, despite your admonitions that I don’t want to go there and should walk away.

        Let’s here it.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Ok, HT, we are in agreement. It is wrong for any level of government to make polygamy illegal and put people in jail for it, even if the state doesn’t recognize the marriage.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Wow Stern…there I was, all girded up for some compelling logic, since I was warned to be afraid to go into the fray…and it was met with very possibly the most impotent response imaginable.

        Buddy, it is OK. I get that there is no real way to actually explain your position in text.

        I was just a bit interested that you might actually try. Since you forewarned me that I did not want to go there, I kind of assumed you had a knockout argument why the state should be able to refuse to recognize interracial marriages.

        I’m a little bit concerned that discussions of allowing interracial marriage gets you to immediately leap to incest, but I also understand that hobgoblins make people take some odd positions.

        I don’t envy your position. It has to be tough to try to defend the indefensible.

      • CaptSternn says:

        There is nothing for me to defend. Natural born citizens are not being stripped of their citizenship and being sent to prison for getting married and living together. Well, except for polygamous marriages. But you don’t seem to have a problem with that.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…supporting the position that it would be OK for a state to deny marriage licenses to interracial couples would seem to warrant a defense, but hey rock on with that.

        I’m disappointed. With your big threat that I didn’t want to go there and that I should just walk away, I was expecting a lot more.

        Kinda sad.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        You read it here first. HT said that no democrats are pro life or against homosexual marriage. That is right. He is the brightest bulb in the room (in his mind). He said it, it must be true.

        Plus, liberal California with a liberals speaker of the house that controls the agenda was overrun by a few republicans to put homosexual marriage on the ballot for a vote.

        What do you liberals think of HT, the amazing thinker?

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz…buddy…we may have to break out our logical fallacy bingo cards for you, but I’m happy to let you continue typing so that we can all get better calibration on the dimness of various bulbs.

        We can start with your somewhat limited understanding of how an initiative gets on a ballot.

        Prop 8 needed about 700,000 valid petition signatures to qualify for the ballot. In 2006, California had a population of about 35,000,000.

        You seem to think a liberal speaker of the house in California put this on the election table? Really? An organization called, ProtectMarriage.com (look it up…you won’t find a bunch of liberals) organization sponsored the initiative that placed Proposition 8 on the ballot.

        Something like $11 or $12 million dollars was raised outside of CA to push for Prop 8.

        You likely know this already (or at least you should since you seem to be an authority on the subject), but party identification, ideology, frequency of religious service attendance, and age drove that vote.

        More than 70 percent of voters who were Republican, identified themselves as conservative, or who attended weekly religious services voted for Prop 8.

        More than 70 percent of voters who were Democrat, identified themselves as liberal, or who rarely attended religious services voted against Prop 8.

        More than two-thirds (67 percent) of voters 65 or older supported Prop 8, while majorities under 65 opposed it.

        Interestingly, and contrary to some of the rational you hear, once you factor in attendance of religious services, Blacks and Hispanics voted very similarly to Whites.

        So Buzz…it was people like you (old, religious, and conservative) that voted for Prop 8.

        But sure…it was the liberals fault.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz…I am a little surprised you are jumping on this island with Stern.

        I thought he was the only one in favor of states having the right to refuse to recognize interracial marriage, but hey, feel free to join him on the island.

        I wouldn’t invite a convention of folks believing this to your island however. There are some scary folks who would support you in this belief.

      • flypusher says:

        Buzzy: “What do you liberals think of HT, the amazing thinker?”

        That he just made a complete and total fool of you using only 0.1% of his brain.

        You post lots of really ignorant stuff buzzy, but claiming the liberals in the CA lege were backing Prop 8 is top ten list material.

    • flypusher says:

      Damn Homer, don’t you hate it when your loins are all so girded and you get that sort of inadequate weasel response?

      What happened with prop 8- you had lots of church going black and Hispanic voters who split their votes; social conservatives who chose a Dem for President for reasons other than social issues. If you put it up for a vote again, it most likely goes the other way, but that’s a moot point as there are certain things that just shouldn’t be up for a vote.

      If you’re so certain that liberals are behind this Sternn, why don’t you give us the names of any liberals who wrote or cosponsored or otherwise lent public support to these marriage bans?

  18. johngalt says:

    Unless Cruz is sitting on a personal fortune of a couple billion large, then he cannot piss off all the GOP movers and shakers and win the primary. He cannot go into swing states as a bomb-thrower with no mainstream support and win in the long run. His brand of crazy might eke to a majority in Texas and South Carolina. It won’t in Ohio and Virginia.

  19. kabuzz61 says:

    As The Captain stated, Cruz is on the right path when all you lefty loonies go batshit crazy. What amazes me is how well educated and accomplished he is. Much more so then those on this site that throw stones. Remember, you guys support Obama. No experience. No leadership. An empty suit. That tells me all I need to know about your political thought.

    • bubbabobcat says:

      Spaketh the empty catsuit.

    • bubbabobcat says:

      kabuzz61 says:
      December 12, 2014 at 3:13 pm

      “That quote is as accurate as any you left wing nut jobs have posted of conservatives.”

      Still haven’t seen ONE example yet of ANY misrepresentation that “you left wing nut jobs have posted of conservatives” here as you BS’ed (oops I mean “claimed”) buzzy.

      And as I predicted, buzzy “conveniently” slinked away without a peep with his too tight hoodie between his legs.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Still not going to provide any proof eh buzzy? Just throw your turd in the punch bowl and walk away yet again?

        Stay classy buzzy.

  20. CaptSternn says:

    Well, not sure what Ted Cruz has done to make the fringe far left start frothing at the mouth (more so than usual), but it must have been something very positive.

    The far left and the democrats want nothing to do with compromise nor do they want to actually work with republicans or anybody from the right. We saw that with Obama’s first two years, we saw it for four more years with Harry Reid refusing hundreds of bills sent by the house, he wouldn’t even allow them to be brought up for debate. It’s well past time that we have some from the right that are willing to stand up against Obama and the far left.

    Now I will go read the news and see what actually happened to make Lifer’s head implode.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Yeah, pretty much what I figured. The GOP establishment sold out to the democrats, undermining the next congress that will have a republican majority in both houses. The establishment really hates the conservative movement and the rise of actual conservatives in the GOP.

      As I said when the republicans won in the 2014 elections, a lot will depend on what they do with the next 12 to 18 months. The GOP establishment is now desperate to throw the 2016 elections and have democrats back in power.

      The establishment said the short government shutdown last year would hurt them in the 2014 elections, but it actually helped them as most logical and informed people understand what was at state and that is was actually democrats that caused the shutdown.

      We get people like Cruz sent to D.C. to do a job, people that have principles and will stand on them. People without principles complain about people with principles. Cruz is doing what he was elected to do. That throws the left and far left extremists into a fit and causes their heads to implode.

      The right now has an uphill battle because of what the GOP establishment in a lame duck congress has done. Lifer, you should be quite happy about the whole thing, it appears to be along the lines of the agenda you support and were hoping for. After all, you have already said that you do not and probably will not vote for any republicans to be sent to D.C. anyway.

      But we are not backing down, so maybe it is about time for you to consider join the party that you really support, the Democratic Party. Though, honestly, from what we have witnessed through your blog and the comments from the left, you may be to far left even for democrats.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Actually all the republican leadership needed to do this year was pass a CR to last until February. But they listened to the dem’s got scared a caved. Good move Cruz. Chris Ladd, the liberals and the GOP establishment SAY they want Washington to change, but when it gets down to it, they really don’t.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        CaptSternn says:
        December 14, 2014 at 5:26 pm

        “The GOP establishment is now desperate to throw the 2016 elections and have democrats back in power.”

        Hedging your bets already Cappy with yet another whacko conspiracy theory so you can claim to be this “prescient genius”?

        Circular reasoning cognitive dissonance means never having to say sorry or you were ever wrong.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…this is a brilliant position for you to take. Intellectually disingenuous and not worthy of adult conversation, but brilliant nonetheless.

        If the Democrats do well in 2016, it is because the GOP “threw” the election.

        If the GOP wins in 2016, it is because the real conservatives won the hearts and minds.

        That is some Class A positioning you got going on there. Either way, you never have to face examination of your own ideas and, in your own head, you will always be right.

        Try to be a touch more reflective or at least a little less obvious that you are a vampire incapable of reflection.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “Either way, you never have to face examination of your own ideas and, in your own head, you will always be right.”

        Actually, I would if we could get some real conservatives running things. Texas has a pretty conservative state government and the state is doing rather well. Not perfect, but better than many other states.

        The establishment sold out to the democrats and pulled the rug out from under the incoming congress. I have a pretty good idea why they did so, they know the republicans will be running things and the tea party movement is still gaining. That means the spotlight will be on them and they will have to move to the right of center or face challengers in the next round of primaries and they are trying to take away the power of actual conservatives.

        They can only kick the can just so far down the road. They kicked it as far as they could, but that could haunt them towards the end of next year and the coming budget battle that will start around March or April. It will be coming to a point around the time they start looking to see who will throw in for the presidency, and that battle will be fresh on the minds of the people they will want to sway. We are the people with long memories, not those with short attention spans.

        So as I said before, the next 12 to 18 months will mean a lot, and it has already began.

      • flypusher says:

        “Actually, I would if we could get some real conservatives running things. ”

        Like Kansas?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Like Texas, Fly. I live in Texas. Try to keep up.

      • flypusher says:

        You really are not honest are you? Conservatives are running Kansas and it is a mess. You have to own that one too. You can’t cherry pick the states, we aren’t allowing that.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Reading through the comments, I see many people still don’t understand the difference between legal and illegal.

      Kabuzz, that’s what the GOP establishment would have done if they actually supported the Republican Platform and wanted a real chance to govern and make changes. The fact that they sold out shows where they really stand. The GOP establishment laments over the 2010 and 2014 elections.

      • mary says:

        As you said in earlier posts, the next 12 mos or so will determine how the GOP will govern and what their chances will be in ’16. It is so much harder to govern than to simply block everything. Those who have actually been elected to office and served understand this. And, yes, Reid blocked as well. So, we ended up with a broken, grid-locked government (and one of the best bull markets we’ve had in years!)

        There are some of us, both Democrat and Republican, who value government and the democratic process. This is why McConnell and Boehner proceeded as they did. It’s not because they didn’t heed the mandate of the voters; nor, because they don’t plan to make the most of the next two years addressing immigration and a host of other conservative priorities. They are looking at the long game, and I’ll take chess over bowling in decision-makers every day of the week. The fallacy in your assessment of Cruz is believing that he is representing the will of his supporters in a principled stand. The inconvenient truth is that he is motivated by self interests and people like this fall on their own swords, sooner or later. I happen to think America needs a strong president in ’16, one who is able to lead, not steamroll. One who knows how to work with Congress to get things done, not to constantly roil the process, who understands business and won’t neglect his/her responsibilities to all of the people, not just those who share his views.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Mary, you were doing okay until you explained Cruz’ interest is only in himself. Now having been around the block a time or two, I think almost all politicians are self serving. Come on.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “They are looking at the long game, and I’ll take chess over bowling in decision-makers every day of the week.”

        In that example, the tea party movement is playing chess.

        The rest of your comment following that bit explains exactly what Obama and democrats are not. I suppose that by your example, they are bowlers. Or in Obama’s case, golfers.

  21. stephen says:

    I am a Republican super voter who will never vote for Cruz.I am a old fashion Republican but first an American. A few times in my life I have voted for the Democrat for the presidency. Generally because the Republican was not a fiscal conservative.I dismiss rhetoric but watch what they did. But Cruz is so destructive and promoting his own self interest I would rather have a Democrat in the Presidency than him. Moderate socially but fiscally conservatives are still a significant part of the GOP coalition. I know other Republicans besides me that in the end voted for Obama last election because Romney did not convince us that he would stand up to the batshit crazies in our party. Florida where I lived was close and we most likely gave Obama his very slim margin of victory there. If Romney had shown some balls he would of won my vote. But if he had he would of lost the primary due to our crazies who show up for the primary election much more than the rest of the GOP coalition. Cruz does not care about the GOP or the crazies who support him. He is in my opinion a political flimflam man. If you really were trying to change something politically you build your coalition by addition not subtraction. So in the end you can get your agenda accomplished. The man has no agenda except to cause chaos. What we have to do is expand the party by going after people who identify firmly with our values. The Latino vote should be ours as these people are very conservative. I know as I live with, work with, worship with and even have Hispanic relatives. But flimflam Cruz aggravates them with his anti-immigration stances to play to the worst element in our coalition. And does this besides his own Hispanic heritage. The guy is an opportunist to the hilt. And is helping the GOP to extinction as a viable national party. If we nominate him we might as well get use to Madam President.

    • rightonrush says:

      I got such a kick outta that Mary. My Grandma (who raised my sister and I) was full blood Chiricahua Apache.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Right on Rush claims Indian heritage like Sen. Warren. BS.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        You ARE the undisputed expert on BS buzzy.

        Now how about you please provide one example of ANY misrepresentation that “you left wing nut jobs have posted of conservatives” here buzzy that you proclaimed but did not provide one iota of proof of.

        And as I predicted, buzzy “conveniently” slinked away without a peep with his too tight hoodie between his legs.

        Your loony wingnut proclamations are about as predictable as the time on a Cesium powered atomic clock. Too bad your accuracy is not.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        kabuzz61 says:
        December 12, 2014 at 3:13 pm

        “That quote is as accurate as any you left wing nut jobs have posted of conservatives.”

        Still haven’t seen ONE example yet of ANY misrepresentation that “you left wing nut jobs have posted of conservatives” here as you BS’ed (oops I mean “claimed”) buzzy.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Well they already made their decision on Rush, you little Anchor Baby you.

  22. mary says:

    Obama, probably “not” the “anti-Christ”? Probally?! So, are we to therefore believe that Cruz is the “Christ”? Anyone who admires Cruz because he is fearless in his efforts to steam-roll anyone and anything to achieve what he thinks is important, needs a shrink. Do not think for a minute that Cruz’ base dictates his agenda; rather, he co-ops his base for convenience, funding, and background noise. It will always be about him and his needs. Cruz lacks the capacity or desire to work with those with different ideas because he is always right, don’t you see? This behavior will wear thin in Congress as his colleagues will distance themselves and form other, more productive relationships.

    Cruz represents the very worst of conservatism through his arrogance and tactics. Surely, the Republican Party can do better. It will be interesting to see how Mitch McConnell manages him.

  23. Shiro says:

    I have a strong feeling that, while Harry Reid was able to push through some nominations with this stunt, no one won more in this situation than Mitch McConnell. Ted Cruz pissed off a lot of Republicans who would be borderline establishment/fringe with his stunt that didn’t really get much accomplished. McConnell must be grinning ear to ear that he will have that leverage to get more and more votes under his belt to make the Senate Republicans seem more or less like they have their act together once they take the majority.

    • goplifer says:

      There’s a little-noted dimension to this story that has enormous impact for next spring. 22 Republican Senators stuck with Cruz down to the bitter end, almost half of the caucus.

      Six more Cruz acolytes are on their way to the Senate in January. McConnell probably is smiling, because he still doesn’t understand the shape of the game.

      Where McConnell sees a chessboard, Cruz sees a bowling alley.

      • Shiro says:

        The very interesting thing about that vote I find is that Chuck Grassley and Rob Portman, by no means ultraconservatives, voted with Cruz on that objection. I think there’s something more going on here behind the scenes since I refuse to believe that those two are really that far gone on this issue. They may have simply sided with Cruz as a protest to the overall bill instead of necessarily siding with him on the immigration issue.

        Another interesting thing is that quite a few of the Republicans who voted with Cruz on the objection ended up voting for the overall bill anyway (Blunt, Boozman, Burr, Fischer, Hoeven, Isakson, Johanns, Roberts, Thune).

      • mary says:

        Dems “secret” weapon….Cruz control!

      • mary says:

        And, what exactly does that tell you about how Republicans will be able govern? Democrats will have an interesting role if the crazy ones insist on disrupting the governing process. Interesting times if one follows politics; sad times if one believes in good government.

      • mary says:

        Well, what game would you rather the POTUS play, chess or bowling? The truest answer if probably both, as long as the pres knows when to use which approach.

  24. Rev says:

    Well, you are the only Rep I will read. You do tell the truth about the wingnuts in the R party. I can even overlook your limiting comments about the brightest president since Clinton.

  25. texan5142 says:

    Bat shit crazy people (Sternn and kabuzz) can not see how crazy this man is. He is a danger to America.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Goodreads

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 476 other followers

%d bloggers like this: