Tag Archives: Ted Cruz

Let’s just call him ‘Lyin’ Donald’

trump-shrug

Donald J. Trump hung epithets around the necks of all his political foes while winning the presidential election.

The label “Lyin’ Ted” was aimed at U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

Cruz cannot come close to matching the lies that Trump has told.

With that, I want to hereby refer to Trump as “Lyin’ Donald.”

He has put out another grand lie. It regards the election results.

Without an ounce, a scintilla, a tiny grain of evidence, Trump now asserts that “millions of votes were cast illegally” for Hillary Rodham Clinton on Election Day.

Way to go, Lyin’ Donald. He’s managed yet again to defame local election workers, staffers and elected officials.

They’re recounting ballots in Wisconsin. They might do the same in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Lyin’ Donald won all three states. Green Party presidential candidate wants the votes recounted to ensure that the original count was done with integrity and honesty.

For Lyin’ Donald to suggest, though, that millions of votes were cast illegally only validates the assertion that many have made about the president-elect. He has no shame, no sense of propriety … but he’s loaded with gall.

Castro created an unintended legacy

cuban_americans_in_orlando_celebrate_dea_0_2329637_ver1-0_640_360

The late Fidel Castro wanted to create a legacy in his island nation of Cuba.

He led what he called a “revolution” in the late 1950s. Castro promised to bring democracy to Cuba. He brought instead a reign of repression and terror.

In the process, though, El Comandante created another legacy. He helped form a lasting political movement in the United States of America. When thousands of Cubans wised up to the misery that was coming to their nation, they fled Cuba for the U.S. of A.

Most of them settled initially in south Florida. The Cuban expatriates then coalesced into a formidable political bloc. They were — and remain — fervently anti-communist to the core.

Their numbers continued to grow through the early and mid-1960s as more Cubans fled the island. Their families expanded in this country. The expats then taught their children and, later, their grandchildren about the hideous rule that Castro had brought to their homeland.

They became involved in U.S. politics. They got elected to high public office. A couple of Cuban descendants — U.S. Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas — sought the Republican Party presidential nomination.

Indeed, the bulk of the Cuban-American political community leans heavily to toward the GOP. Their influence has helped inform Republican Party policy toward Cuba for nearly six decades.

This bloc of voters also fought successfully — until recently — against efforts to restore diplomatic and economic relations between the United States and Cuba.

The Cuban commies who mourn Castro’s death likely won’t bring up this part of the tyrant’s legacy. I have just done so here.

Ted Cruz for Supreme Court?

UNITED STATES - SEPTEMBER 20: Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., participate in the press conference on military aid to Israel with on Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham has posited an interesting notion about who should be nominated to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

He says his Republican Senate colleague, Ted Cruz of Texas, should get the call.

Cruz would be hailed by everyone in the Senate as the perfect choice by the new president, according to Graham — but not for reasons that have anything to do with Cruz’s credentials.

Most of Cruz’s Senate colleagues detest him. They would vote virtually unanimously to send him to the Supreme Court, said Graham, who once joked that “if you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.”

Graham and Cruz, you must recall, once were GOP rivals for the party’s presidential nomination in 2016. Donald J. Trump ended up winning the presidency and now can nominate someone to fill the court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Do I think Cruz would be a good choice? No. I don’t want the court to mess with a woman’s right to choose to end a pregnancy or to undo its ruling that legalized gay marriage.

Still, Sen. Cruz — or “Lyin’ Ted,” as Trump once labeled him — would be a most provocative selection for the court. He is a sharp lawyer, a former Texas solicitor general who has argued before the Supreme Court.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lindsey-graham-ted-cruz-supreme-court_us_582ba677e4b01d8a014b4490

The new president might want to look to make a key appointment that would steer him away from difficult a Senate confirmation fight. In that context, Ted Cruz for the U.S. Supreme Court sounds like the right choice.

 

GOP looking to make Hillary’s service difficult

cruz

Ted Cruz has joined his Senate Republican colleague John McCain in declaring war on a potential — if not probable — new president’s appointment powers.

Cruz, the former GOP presidential candidate, says there is “precedent” for the Supreme Court to operate with only eight members. That is a form of code for saying that it it’s OK for the Senate to block anyone that a President Hillary Clinton would nominate to fill the vacant ninth seat on the nation’s highest court.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/10/27/cruz-says-theres-precedent-keeping-ninth-supreme-c/

McCain was wrong to say such a thing.  Cruz is equally wrong.

Assuming that Clinton wins the presidency in eight days, the Senate Republicans are digging in as they seek to block any appointment the Democratic president might make.

President Obama already has felt the sting of raw politics in that process. Antonin Scalia died eight months ago while vacationing in Texas. Obama selected federal judge Merrick Garland to replace the late Supreme Court justice — one of the conservative titans on the narrowly divided court.

The reaction from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was shameful in its political nature. Within hours of Scalia’s death, he declared that the Senate would block anyone President Obama would nominate; he declared that the nomination should be handled by the next president.

Well, Mr. Majority Leader, the next president is likely to be a Democrat, too. That has prompted Sens. McCain and Cruz to suggest that the next president won’t be able to nominate anyone, either.

Who’s playing politics with the U.S. Constitution? Republicans keep insisting that Democrats are doing it. They are shamefully lacking in self-awareness … as the continuing vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court has demonstrated all too graphically.

Has Cruz self-inflicted a mortal political wound?

501525552-800x500

Ted Cruz’s presidential ambitions have been mortally wounded.

That’s the view of Texas Monthly blogger Erica Grieder, who thinks the Texas Republican’s endorsement of GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump has done far more harm than good — for Cruz.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/ted-cruz-caves/

Cruz had, since the GOP convention, stood on the principle that Trump is not to be trusted, that he’s “amoral,” that he’s a narcissist, that he is a “serial philanderer,” that he is a “con man.”

Now he’s acceptable to Cruz.

But …

Is he acceptable to Cruz’s substantial conservative base of voters who still cannot stomach Donald Trump even though their guy — Cruz — now seems to find the nominee worthy of his endorsement?

Grieder notes that Cruz wants to be president. He ran hard for the GOP nomination. He developed a substantial following among the GOP’s more conservative base of voters. He told GOP convention attendees to “vote your conscience” this fall. Now he’s tell them to vote for Trump.

Mixed message? Do you think?

As Grieder writes: “First, both of the reasons Cruz gave for his decision, in a statement he posted on Facebook Friday afternoon—that he signed a pledge and that Hillary Clinton is unacceptable—are demonstrably ridiculous. Even if you agree that Clinton is more ‘unacceptable’ than Trump, and that a pledge made to the Republican National Committee should take precedence over one’s oath of office and one’s repeated promises to work for the 27 million people of Texas, it remains the case that Cruz signed the pledge last year and could have known, months ago, that Clinton would be the Democratic nominee.”

Cruz figured to have a potentially stout Republican challenge when he runs for re-election to the U.S. Senate in 2018. Now, with his endorsement of Trump — who once stood for everything that Cruz detested — the challenge well might come from the TEA party wing of the GOP.

These are the folks who now feel betrayed by their one-time golden boy, Sen. Cruz.

If Ted Cruz cannot survive a challenge to his Senate seat in two years, well … the presidency is certain to vanish before the senator’s eyes.

Kasich: the last principled GOP ex-candidate standing

kasich

John Kasich and Ted Cruz took Donald J. Trump’s march to the Republican presidential nomination down to the wire.

They finally conceded this summer that the real estate mogul/reality TV celebrity would be their party’s nominee.

Sen. Cruz, R-Texas, attended the GOP convention in Cleveland and received a torrent of boos from delegates for encouraging them to “vote your conscience.” He declined at that moment to endorse Trump.

Kasich, who governs Ohio, didn’t attend the convention in his home state. He still hasn’t endorsed Trump.

Whereas Cruz’s initial refusal was based on Trump’s repeated insults against Heidi Cruz, the candidate’s wife, and his father, Rafael, Kasich has kept his distance because Trump — in Kasich’s view — simply doesn’t represent the tradition of a once-great political party.

Cruz swilled the Kool-Aid and today announced he would vote for Trump in November. Kasich hasn’t said anything of the kind.

I had hoped Sen. Cruz would remain on the sidelines. Now it’s up to Kasich to demonstrate that at least one Republican leader has the stones to stand on principle.

Gov. Kasich remains my favorite Republican presidential candidate. Indeed, had he been the nominee instead of Trump, there stood an excellent chance that I would have voted Republican for president this year — for the first time since I began voting in 1972.

I’m still wrestling with what I’m going to do this year.

Kasich should have been the nominee, given his record of success as a leader in Congress and his cooperation with President Bill Clinton in achieving a balanced federal budget.

Sadly, none of that seemed to matter to the red-meat carnivores who comprise the base of the Republican Party.

My hope remains that Gov. Kasich will remain at arm’s length from this year’s GOP nominee.

I’ve noted all along that Kasich was the rare grown-up in this year’s GOP presidential campaign. He hasn’t let me down yet.

Cruz does it … he endorses Trump!

cruz-and-trump

Politics can be a fickle endeavor. Your enemy becomes your friend at times for the most dubious of reasons.

History is full of such examples: John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson battled for the Democratic nomination in 1960; JFK then picked LBJ as his vice president. George H.W. Bush accused Ronald Reagan was espousing “voodoo economics” in 1980; then the Gipper picked Poppy to be his No. 2. Barack Obama told Hillary Clinton she was “likable enough” during a 2008 Democratic primary debate; then Obama tapped Clinton to serve as secretary of state.

Now we have Ted Cruz, the Republican senator from Texas — the guy who called Donald J. Trump a “pathological liar,” a “serial philanderer,” and an “amoral bully” — endorsing the GOP presidential nominee.

The Cruz Missile is going to vote for Trump in November, he said. Why the change of heart? It looks for all the world like an anti-Hillary endorsement.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-rival-cruz-to-throw-support-to-gop-nominee-228584

Frankly, I thought Cruz might withhold his endorsement throughout the campaign, given the hideous things Trump said about the senator, his wife Heidi and his father. It got intensely personal for Cruz and I believed he was right at the GOP convention to urge the delegates to “vote your conscience.”

Well, it didn’t happen.

The fickle nature of politics has shown once again how foes can set aside hurtful comments to achieve a common end.

Will it help or hurt? Many of Cruz’s most ardent conservative supporters believe Trump is an imposter to their principles.

What the heck. Politics in this raw form can be downright ugly.

Don’t give in to endorsement pressure, Sen. Cruz

trump_cruz_jpg_800x1000_q100

It pains me to say something positive about U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

I don’t like the guy. He appears in my view to be far more interested in self-aggrandizement than service to Texans. He’s a loudmouth, a showboating self-promoter.

But shoot, man, I have been happy to see him stand by his principles — even if I disagree with them — in his dispute with GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

Cruz hasn’t endorsed Trump’s bid for the presidency. Why? Because he believes — as I do — that Trump is a fraud, a charlatan, a con man, an unprincipled opportunist, a phony.

Now, though, I hear reports of Cruz reportedly warming up to Trump. He said some nice things about Trump recently.

Dammit, Ted! Don’t go there, young man!

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/09/22/the-brief/

Trump inserted some amazingly harsh innuendo into the GOP primary campaign as he sought to vanquish Cruz’s challenge. He actually implied that Cruz’s father, a Cuban immigrant, had been seen in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald, the guy who murdered President Kennedy. The suggestion was that the elder Cruz was somehow, in some way, complicit in that act.

Plus, let’s not forget how Trump insulted Heidi Cruz, the senator’s wife, with that unflattering Twitter photo. Sen. Cruz was rightfully outraged by that tactic and called Trump a coward.

Against that backdrop, are we now going to believe that Cruz is going to make nice with this guy? That he’s going to say “Hey, let bygones be bygones” and endorse Trump’s bid for the presidency?

I happen to share Cruz’s previously stated outrage at Trump’s behavior, which I believe firmly would carry over into a Trump presidency.

Let’s not forget, either, that Cruz urged his fellow Republicans at the party’s nominating convention to “vote your conscience” this fall.

Stay true to your own conscience, Sen. Cruz.

RNC boss seeks dictator status

1474224625553

I feel the need to revisit briefly an idiotic notion by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus.

He’s issued a warning to former GOP presidential candidates that they might “face consequences” if they seek the presidency in the future if they continue to refuse to back this year’s nominee, Donald J. Trump.

My question simply is this: Who in the hell does Priebus think he is?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/18/candidates-who-dont-back-trump-may-not-be-allowed-to-run-again-rnc-chairman-says.html

Priebus said potential future candidates such as, say, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz might find some insurmountable obstacles if they seek the party nomination in 2020.

Wait a second! Didn’t former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz face the scorn of her partisans for allegedly rigging the party nomination to favor Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Priebus now insists that the former GOP presidential candidates line up behind Trump … or else face the consequences.

That is a ridiculous and gratuitously ham-handed approach to pre-determining who the party’s next nominee ought to be.

The GOP presidential field signed a pledge to support whoever the party nominated for president. The pledge, though, isn’t legally binding. It’s not even politically binding, given that neither major party has a rule requiring blind loyalty.

Chairman Priebus is exhibiting delusions of grandeur if he thinks he can hand out “consequences” for future candidates who don’t abide by his wishes.

Birther argument misses major point

BBvvuJA

My head is about to explode.

So help me, it is.

Donald J. Trump’s half-assed declaration that the birther movement he helped perpetuate is now over has glossed over the single most under-reported element of this entire controversy.

It doesn’t matter one damn bit whether baby Barack Hussein Obama Jr. came into this world in Hawaii, Kenya or on Mars. He would have been constitutionally qualified to hold the office of president of the United States.

Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, declared Obama was “born in the United States. Period.” That ends the lie he’s been telling for more than five years, that Obama was a foreign-born pretender to the presidency.

It’s always been a racist smear meant to defame the twice-elected first African-American president. Trump knows it. Yet he kept saying it, more than 60 times out loud over the years, according to some sources.

But here’s the deal, folks. Barack Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen when she gave birth to her baby in Honolulu in August 1961. His mother’s citizenship bestowed U.S. citizenship immediately on Barack Obama. None of this “birther” crap matters. The Constitution says only “natural-born” citizens can serve as president. Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen.

Do you remember when Trump raised the same issue about former Republican primary rival Ted Cruz, who actually was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father? Cruz, the Texas U.S. senator, said he earned his U.S. citizenship by virtue of his mother’s citizenship.

End of discussion.

This utter crap about President Obama’s place of birth continues to fester only because of the man’s racial makeup.

For Trump to have perpetuated the lie is a disgrace on its face. His tepid declaration late this past week that, by golly, he was wrong all those years is nearly as disgraceful.

Will it go away now that the GOP nominee has said it’s over? No. Nor should it. This individual, Trump, should do what he says he never does: apologize to the president of the United States for seeking to defame him.