Tag Archives: Ted Cruz

What will Cruz tell Texas delegates?

tedcruz_0

Inquiring minds, it’s been said more than once, want to know.

They want to know just what U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is going to tell Texas delegates to the Republican National Convention when he stands before them.

You see, the man dubbed “Lyin’ Ted” by the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, is still stinging over his loss of the GOP primary battle. Trump hung that epithet on Cruz and also said some outrageous things about Cruz’s father — and his campaign also mistreated Cruz’s wife in a terribly cruel fashion.

Cruz won the Texas primary back in March.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/15/cruz-ryan-among-speakers-texas-delegates-cleveland/

I’m having difficulty imagining the junior U.S. senator telling those delegates it’s all right for them to back Trump now that their guy — Cruz — is out of the race.

Indeed, Cruz himself hasn’t endorsed Trump and I am doubting an endorsement will be forthcoming.

How does Cruz offer his unconditional support to someone who suggested that his own father might have been complicit in the murder of President John F. Kennedy? And how does he back the man whose campaign put that ghastly tweet out that showed Heidi Cruz, the senator’s wife, making some kind of sour-grapy face?

I am no political fan of Sen. Cruz. I don’t want him anywhere near the Oval Office any more than I want Trump to take a seat there.

A part of me wishes I could be the proverbial fly on the wall when Cruz stands before the Texas convention delegates to tell them what he thinks of the guy their party is about to nominate for president of the United States of America.

Hey, he might just tell them: Y’all are on your own.

Killing a cop need not become a federal issue

cornyn

John Cornyn is angry about the deaths of those five Dallas police officers.

So am I. So are millions of other Americans.

Is that reason enough to create a new federal law, as Sen. Cornyn, is proposing? No. The states have it covered.

Cornyn, the Republican senior U.S. senator from Texas, wants to make killing police officers a federal crime. He’s gotten some co-sponsors for his bill, including his fellow Texan, Republican Ted Cruz.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/13/Cornyn-Bill-Makes-Killing-Police-Federal-Crime/

My hunch is that Cornyn’s bill is meant to toughen penalties in states that do not now impose the death penalty for any capital crime.

I understand Cornyn’s interest in this issue. He’s a former Bexar County trial judge and a former Texas attorney general.

Texas, though, already makes killing cops an automatic death penalty prosecution, as do most states in the country.

According to the Texas Tribune: “Law enforcement officers selflessly put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities, and in return they deserve our unparalleled support for the irreplaceable role they serve,” Cornyn said in a statement. “The Back the Blue Act sends a clear message that our criminal justice system simply will not tolerate those who viciously and deliberately target our law enforcement. As our country continues to grieve following last week’s tragedy in Dallas, we must come together in support of those who risk everything to keep us safe.”

My goodness, we can support our officers in many tangible ways. Texas already has enacted strict punishment for those convicted of killing officers.

Cities can support their police departments by ensuring they have adequate resources, staffing, up-to-date equipment and training. Legislatures can buttress local governments with sufficient grant funds that they can funnel to communities to assist in providing the best law enforcement that money can buy.

Millions of Americans are justifiably outraged over the attack that occurred in Dallas. Do we need another federal law that proves how mad we are? No.

Welcome aboard, Sen. Cruz

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz speaks during the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum at the National Rifle Association's 142 Annual Meetings and Exhibits in the George R. Brown Convention Center Friday, May 3, 2013, in Houston.  The 2013 NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits runs from Friday, May 3, through Sunday, May 5.  More than 70,000 are expected to attend the event with more than 500 exhibitors represented. The convention will features training and education demos, the Antiques Guns and Gold Showcase, book signings, speakers including Glenn Beck, Ted Nugent and Sarah Palin as well as NRA Youth Day on Sunday ( Johnny Hanson / Houston Chronicle )

Ted Cruz is now aboard Air Force One.

Right there — that sentence — tells me a lot.

Air Force One is the plane that carries the president of the United States. It could be a two-seat prop plane; when it carries the Big Man, it becomes Air Force One.

Sen. Cruz, the junior Texas Republican, has been a harsh critic of the current president, Barack Obama.

The two of them, though, are flying to Dallas to attend an interfaith memorial service later today in honor of the five policemen shot to death this past week in the hideous rampage at the end of a peaceful march protesting two police-involved shootings earlier in the week.

The president will speak at the memorial, as will former President George W. Bush. That, too, symbolizes a remarkable coming together during this troubling time.

I wonder if the president and the senator are going to schmooze, talk nice to each other. Or will they — to use the diplomatic parlance — have one of those “frank” discussions about the issues that divide them.

Whatever. My hunch is that we well might hear a bit less of the harshness from Sen. Cruz whenever he speaks in the near future of the commander in chief.

Filibuster provides a rare Senate ‘victory’

Chris Murphy was incensed at his U.S. Senate colleagues.

Four years after his Connecticut constituents suffered the unspeakable grief from the Newtown school massacre, Congress hadn’t done anything to curb gun violence.

So, the Democratic lawmaker took the Senate floor the other day and began filibustering.

He was spurred to talk and talk and talk by the latest mass slaughter, of 49 individuals in Orlando, Fla., this past weekend.

I want to applaud Sen. Murphy for something he achieved from his 15-hour gabfest. He persuaded the Senate Republicans who run the place to hold votes on at least a couple of key bills that proponents say will help curb gun violence.

Hey, it’s a big deal. As big a deal is that it came about by a senator persuading his colleagues to schedule these votes by talking the issue to death.

Filibusters are unique to the Senate. The House doesn’t allow it.

A filibuster allows senators to talk about whatever they want. They can use the procedure to stall legislation. Some prominent lawmakers have used the filibuster to obtain legendary status. The late Sen. Strom Thurmond holds the record for non-stop Senate blabbing. My former senator, the late Wayne Morse of Oregon, was another well-known blowhard who knew how to use the filibuster to maximum advantage.

Sometimes senators’ use of the filibuster backfires. Ted Cruz of Texas sought to filibuster the Affordable Care Act to death in 2013. He failed.

Murphy, though, managed to get a vote on one of the knottiest issues of our time: gun control.

I am not sure where it will go. There are some interesting compromises to what Murphy favors, dealing with disallowing suspected terrorists from obtaining a firearm.

I won’t comment further here on the merits of what Murphy desires.

However, I applaud the senator for talking long enough to get the Senate leadership to at least put this issue to a vote.

A little self-awareness, please, Sen. Cruz

I cannot let this pass without comment.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, called the filibuster led by Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut a “distraction.” He said it’s a “game.” He labeled it “political gamesmanship,” which he said the public considers to be “ridiculous.”

Wow, dude.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/16/cruz_senate_filibuster_a_distraction_political_gamesmanship.html

Filibusters by their very nature are meant to “distract” senators.

I believe I’ll now point to Sen. Cruz’s own game of “political gamesmanship” when he led a faux filibuster three years ago to defund the Affordable Care Act. The effect was to temporarily shut down the federal government as Cruz read passages from Dr. Seuss on the floor of the Senate.

He didn’t succeed in defunding the ACA, but he did succeed in making a fool of himself.

Of all the 98 remaining senators who could have spoken out against Sen. Murphy’s filibuster that he used to force a vote on gun legislation, why did it have to be Ted Cruz, the unofficial king of “political gamesmanship”?

 

Texas may prove to be Trump GOP testing ground

TrumpTexas_jpg_800x1000_q100

If Donald J. Trump is having trouble wooing Texas Republicans into his embrace, then he might be having even more trouble everywhere else.

Ross Ramsey’s excellent analysis in the Texas Tribune lays out the problem that the presumptive GOP presidential nominee is having as he tightens the grip on his quest for the White House.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/06/analysis-texas-pols-trying-muster-words-support-tr/

Ramsey hold up Ted Cruz as an example of Trump’s Texas dilemma.

A lot of Texas politicians backed the junior U.S. senator’s bid for the White House. Cruz backed out of the race after the Indiana primary. He’s been mainly silent about Trump’s campaign ever since. Cruz has returned to work in the Senate.

His friends and allies, though, aren’t any more eager to attach themselves to Trump’s train than Cruz has been.

Trump said some pretty spiteful things about Cruz during the campaign. And, no, they didn’t gin up much sympathy from me … as I didn’t want Cruz to be the next president of the United States. If you’re Cruz, though, you should take some of these epithets personally.

And then there was that hideous attack on Heidi Cruz, for crying out loud!

Gov. Greg Abbott is kinda/sorta backing Trump. Ramsey noted that recently Abbott made a speech backing Trump without ever mentioning the candidate’s name. How do you do that?

Then again, Abbott has his own Trump burden to bear, given the state’s investigation into the defunct Trump University and the campaign contribution that showed up immediately after Abbott — while he was Texas attorney general — dropped the state’s legal action.

Hmmm.

Let’s not forget former Gov. Rick Perry, who once called Trump a “cancer on conservatism.” He’s now backing him out loud and proudly. As Ramsey points out, Perry also said he’d accept a vice-presidential invitation if it came from Trump.

Many actual Republicans in Texas accuse Trump of being one of them in name only. You know, a RINO.

But as Texas Republicans have demonstrated time and again since ascending to power in this state, they are willing to put actual qualifications and fitness aside when selecting candidates for high political office. Party labels matter more than anything else.

To be fair, Democrats did much the same thing when they ran the show. We still actually have a smattering of those “Yellow Dog Democrats” out there who’d vote for a yellow dog before they’d vote for a Republican.

Trump’s fight for the love of Texas Republicans remains a daunting task. As Ramsey notes:

“Many others in the GOP seem stuck on the road between their original choices for the Republican presidential nomination and Trump, the apparent winner.  Some will convert. Some will get out and proselytize for the nominee.

“But not yet. That first sale is the hardest one to close.”

Ex-felons have rights, too

felon-voting-bars-button

Some of the talk along the presidential campaign trail has turned to felons.

Do those who have been convicted of felonies deserve the right to vote? Sure they do … under certain conditions.

It’s becoming a bit of a sore point among many who think that felons must not have their rights of citizenship restored. If they’ve done something egregiously wrong, why, let them pay for the rest of their lives. That’s the mantra.

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe recently granted ex-felons the right to vote in that state, much to the consternation of conservatives who argue that, by golly, McAuliffe is a friend and political ally of Democratic nominee-to-be Hillary Rodham Clinton. So, naturally he’d want to grant ex-felons the right to vote.

Former GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz of Texas actually said that those who commit crimes are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. Let’s not paint with too broad a brush, Sen. Cruz.

Texas — of all places! — allows former felons to vote.

Check this out from the Texas Secretary of State’s Office:

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/effects.shtml

If a felon completes all the terms of his or her release from prison — and that includes fulfilling all the parole requirements — then he or she is eligible to register to vote. The restoration of these rights do not extend to those wanting to run for political office.

Honestly, I fail to see why this is a big deal.

A left-leaning website chides the National Rifle Association for opposing the rights of ex-felons to vote while at the same time pushing for the rights of ex-felons to own firearms.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/05/22/3780685/nra-wants-ex-felons-guns-not-voting-rights/

I won’t wade into that snake pit here. Maybe later.

However, the idea behind incarcerating people convicted of committing serious crimes is to force them to “repay their debt to society.” Once they complete a prison sentence and once they complete the terms of their parole — if they’re let out of The Joint early — then they have paid their debt in full. That’s how the judicial system sees it.

This clearly is a state-by-state issue. It need not enter the federal realm.

I’ve been critical in the past of many Texas laws and those who make them here. On this one, though, the Lone Star State got it right.

 

Cruz’s omission spoke volumes at GOP gathering

tedcruz_0

Texas Republicans gathering at their state convention in Dallas over the weekend waited to hear from one of their golden boys.

He went to the podium and delivered a typically fiery speech about how the Texas GOP should stand firm behind its “conservative principles.”

The message came from U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, who until just about three weeks ago, had contended that he would be the party’s presidential nominee.

He won’t make it.

That prize is now left for Donald J. Trump to grasp.

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

So, the question becomes: Will the vanquished junior senator from Texas endorse the presumptive GOP nominee for president?

Excuse me while I laugh … out loud.

As Erica Grieder writes for Texas Monthly, it ain’t gonna happen.

Cruz’s speech to the convention delegates contained a lot of references to those conservative principles. He didn’t mention Trump’s name a single, solitary time.

No mention of the nominee, the guy who’s going to hoist the party banner and traipse across the land proclaiming himself to be the party messenger.

Are you as not surprised as I am that Cruz wouldn’t mention Trump?

I ran into Randall County Judge Ernie Houdashell just before he shoved off for the GOP convention. He and I exchanged a few friendly words in the supermarket parking lot. He mentioned Cruz’s name in passing. The judge — as reliable and devoted a Republican as you’ll ever see — made no mention of Trump.

I’ll have to ask Houdashell the next time I see him to ask him straight away: Are you going to “support” the party nominee? I’ll try to avoid asking whether he’d vote for Trump this fall, given that he’s entitled to cast whatever vote he wants in private.

Sure, Trump is gathering his share of public endorsements in Texas. Gov. Greg Abbott is on board, as is former Gov. Rick Perry.

I haven’t heard much from Sen. John Cornyn or from former Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison on whether they’re going to back Trump.

Cruz, of course, has been gored terribly by his party’s nominee. Trump’s “Lyin’ Ted” label surely hurt the senator, as did Trump’s hideous reference to Heidi Cruz, the wife of his former GOP presidential foe.

So, he didn’t mention Trump’s name at the GOP convention podium. Cruz’s silence spoke volumes.

As Grieder writes in her blog about Cruz: “He recognized Trump’s political appeal earlier on, in other words, and responded with an eye toward his strategic goals rather than his values or principles. He deserves criticism for that. But so too do many of his critics in the Republican Party — all too many of whom are now, after nine more months of this lurid spectacle, making an even more cynical bargain, and one that Cruz, clearly enough, is unwilling to accept. It’s like he said. You learn a lot about a candidate over the course of a campaign.”

 

Why not Bernie for VP?

Cassidy-Bernie-Sanders-Loud-and-Clear-1200

The more I think about it, the more plausible it’s beginning to sound.

Bernie Sanders well might become Hillary Clinton’s running mate against Donald J. Trump.

I had been thinking all along that Clinton might look more toward someone with, say, a Hispanic background. Former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro — who’s now housing secretary in the Obama administration — was a logical choice.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s name has popped up. That’s an interesting pick, too. An all-woman Democratic ticket? You go, girls!

But now it seems quite possible that Sen. Sanders — who’s been battle-tested and proven to be up to the fight — might be the right kind of No. 2 to challenge Trump and whomever he selects as his running mate.

Sanders already has pulled Clinton to the left on some of his pet issues: income inequality, war in the Middle East to name just two.

At one level, he’s already won the ideological fight within the Democratic Party. Indeed, if he’s not chosen, I truly can hear Sanders making a “the dream shall never die” speech at the Democratic convention, echoing the stirring address given by vanquished Sen. Ted Kennedy at the 1980 convention that re-nominated President Carter.

However, if Clinton picks Sanders as her VP nominee, then he’ll continue the fight forward.

One obvious drawback is his age. He’s 74. He’d be 79 at the end of a first Clinton term. There might be a commitment to serve just one term as vice president if a President Clinton were to seek re-election in 2020.

Of course, only the candidate knows who she’s going to pick.

As for Trump, he said he’s narrowed his list to “five or six” individuals. He vows to pick an actual Republican and someone with “political experience.” He, too, has a list of former rivals he might consider, although at least two of them — Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. John Kasich — have all but told Trump to jump in the proverbial lake before asking either of them to run with him.

The mystery of who’ll be running for president in the fall has just about been solved.

Now we’ll await these important choices for the No. 2 spots.

I’m starting to “feel the Bern.”

 

Remember that GOP pledge of support?

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump looks at a signed pledge during a news conference in Trump Tower, Thursday, Sept. 3, 2015 in New York. Trump ruled out the prospect of a third-party White House bid and vowed to support the Republican Party's nominee, whoever it may be. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham says he won’t vote for, or support, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush echoes that view. Bush says Trump is unfit for the presidency and won’t get his vote.

These two men have something in common apart from their mutual distrust and loathing of the guy who beat them in the GOP presidential primary.

They both signed the “pledge” to support the Republican presidential nominee — no matter who he or she is.

Didn’t former New York Gov. George Pataki say just recently that he won’t support Trump?

To be sure, we need to hear from a lot of other former Republican candidates. Sen. Ted Cruz signed the pledge. His running mate — for all of nine days — Carly Fiorina signed it, too. The last candidate to drop out, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, also has made his feelings quite clear about Trump: He can’t stand him, either — and, oh yes, he signed the pledge, too.

Ben Carson’s already on board with Trump. So is former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

We need to hear from the rest of the once-huge field.

This is why such phony pledges get candidates in trouble.

I happen to respect Sen. Graham and Gov. Bush very much. I believe they’re standing on a principle. They do not want their party represented by a huckster, which is what they’ve determined Trump to be.

Interestingly, the only GOP candidate to refused initially to sign the pledge was Donald Trump, who later signed it … and then recanted his pledge.

Still, the others did put their names on that pledge.

I guess Graham and Bush can take it all back. Politicians do it all the time.