Tag Archives: Ted Cruz

Hey, these guys got along, too!

newt

The politics of the moment has this way of inflicting a case of selective amnesia among politicians.

Take last night’s 12th — and possibly final — Republican Party presidential debate with Donald J. Trump, Rafael Edward Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich as providing an example of that peculiar malady.

One of them (I can’t remember who) brought up President Reagan’s famous buddy-buddy relationship with House Speaker Tip O’Neill. The two men — one Republican, one Democrat — worked well together.

Sure they did. I honor them for that cooperation.

So did a couple of other well-known pols. Democratic President Bill Clinton and Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich also managed to find common ground when the need arose. And it did, particularly as it regarded the need to balance the federal budget.

None of these current GOP candidates, though, mentions that political partnership.

We all know why that is the case, of course.

It’s because the president’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, wants to ascend to the office her husband once occupied.

Why, we just can’t give Bill Clinton any props for doing what the current president and the current congressional leadership seem unable — or perhaps unwilling — to do.

I’m the first to acknowledge that the Clinton-Gingrich relationship never evolved into the personal public friendship that Reagan and O’Neill developed.

The Gipper and the Tipper would share some spirits once they were off the clock, setting politics aside; it’s been reported widely how they would swap stories between them and laugh at the foolishness of the day.

I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of similar moments of non-political fellowship involving Bill and Newtie.

However, they certainly did form a valuable political partnership during the time Gingrich was speaker. It’s understandable, I suppose, that the Republicans running for president would choose to ignore it.

I’ll just have to rely on Hillary Clinton to remind the rest of us how bipartisan cooperation can work.

She was there, too.

 

 

Government is not a vacuum-sealed profession

IMG_0631_JPG_312x1000_q100

Ted Cruz knows as well as any of the 100 men and women who work in the U.S. Senate that politicians don’t operate in a vacuum.

The freshman Republican from Texas wants to become president. Were he to stroll into the Oval Office next January, he’ll have a serious issue to resolve.

How is he going to work with the individuals who seem to despise him?

Cruz stands alone in the Senate among those who think highly of him. Or so it appears.

As they say: The president proposes but Congress disposes. The Senate comprises half of the Capitol Building. The overwhelming consensus so far in this presidential campaign has been that Cruz — elected to the Senate in 2012 — has precious few friends and political allies in that body.

So the question persists on my mind: How does this guy expect to get a single thing done while working with a legislative body comprising individuals who can’t stand him?

Presidents don’t work in a vacuum. The most successful of them know how to legislate, know that to get anything done requires them to compromise.

Cruz keeps yapping about never yielding to the other side, never cutting deals, never forsaking his strong conservative principles.

I take that to mean that it’s going to be his way or the highway.

Strange. Isn’t that what Republicans have been saying about President Barack Obama?

 

Oh, for the old days of presidential debates

Nixon-Kennedy-debate_1960

CNN broadcast a special the other night on the landmark debate series between two men vying for the presidency of the United States of America.

Democratic U.S. Sen. John Kennedy faced Republican Vice President Richard Nixon.

The special talked at length about the men’s preparation for the encounters and the consequences that they delivered to the U.S. electoral system.

If only we could return to those days when the most trivial thing we talked about was whether one candidate looked more robust than the other one.

These days, we’re talking about a lot of things that have pulled these joint appearances into the gutter.

The leading Republican candidate, Donald J. Trump, is fond of tossing insults out at his opponents. Lately, some of those foes have responded. One of them, young Marco Rubio, has introduced — in a round-about way — the subject of Trump’s sexual endowments.

We’ve heard comments about perspiration, watched Trump make fun of Rubio’s physical appearance, listened at Trump has called Ted Cruz a lying son-of-a-gun.

And then — from the peanut gallery — former GOP nominee Mitt Romney has weighed in with comments and questions about why Trump doesn’t release his tax returns; he’s also called Trump a “phony” and a “fraud.” Trump’s response? Romney is a loser, a has-been.

We are witnessing an absurd demonstration of petulance on a level many of us have never before witnessed at this level of what is supposed to pass for political discourse.

Fifty-six years ago, two men faced off in a series of three joint appearances. We were enthralled then just at the notion of watching them on live television. Those grainy black-and-white pictures now seem quaint.

The high-minded debate they engaged in, though, now looks statesmanlike, dignified, the kind of encounter one should expect to see between two individuals seeking to become the next head of state of the world’s greatest nation.

These days? It’s a clown show.

 

What took so long to go after Trump?

Cruz_Detroit2_jpg_800x1000_q100

The 11th version of the Republican Party presidential debate circus provided one more frontal assault tonight by the three remaining viable challengers to frontrunner Donald J. Trump.

I’m going to join others around the country in asking: What took these guys so long to muster up the guts to go after this guy?

Mitt Romney this morning unleashed a blistering critique of Trump. He challenged his temperament, judgment, his business acumen, his ethics, his morals, his shallowness … have I left anything out?

Then tonight Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich continued their assault on Trump.

This comes after months of seeking to “stay on the high road.” They were cowed by Trump’s lambasting of others who dared criticize him. Trump pointed gleefully at how others who would take shots at him would see their own campaigns evaporate.

Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham? All gone.

Jeb Bush? Toast.

The rest of them? See you later.

Cruz wants to be the last man standing in the anti-Trump brigade, according to the Texas Tribune. But another strategy is beginning to develop: It is to keep the field crowded and denying Trump the ability to gather enough delegates to win the GOP nomination outright on the first ballot at the party convention this summer in Cleveland.

Trump’s incredible crassness has been ripe for criticism all along.

His foes, such as they’ve been to date, have chickened out.

I’ll give former Texas Gov. Perry credit, though, for sticking it to Trump early — only to see his own presidential campaign fizzle out.

Were the other guys afraid that would happen to them as well?

 

 

Quandary awaits on Primary Election Day

1407859219000-Election-3-

I am confused about how I should vote on Texas Primary Election Day.

You know, of course, that I hate early voting. I prefer to wait until Election Day to cast my ballot. This year has proved that practice to be more essential than ever. The wackiness of the Republican primary contest has taken us to places never before seen.

But here’s my quandary.

Texas has an open primary system, meaning that voters aren’t “registered” with a political party. We go to the polling place and choose which primary we want to cast our vote. The polling judge will stamp our voting cards with “Republican” or “Democrat,” some of the time; occasionally they forget to do it.

Our polling place is at a local church. We’ll walk through the door and have to decide: Do I vote Democratic or do I vote Republican? (I won’t speak for my wife. She makes up her own mind on these things.)

My own presidential voting history is straightforward. I’ve voted in every election since 1972 and have voted Democratic every time. I flinched one year: 1976, in the race between President Ford and former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter; I ended up voting for Carter.

Primary elections in this part of Texas, though, limit one’s options. All the local activity is on the Republican side. We have some token Democrats running for statewide office, but in Randall County — the unofficial birthplace of modern Texas Republicanism — all the local offices are decided on the GOP side.

My problem is this: Do I want to vote in the Republican primary to cast a ballot for someone other than Donald J. Trump or Rafael Edward Cruz or do I lean toward my traditional roots and vote for either Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?

I’ve declared already that my favorite presidential candidate — of the seven people running in either party — appears to be Ohio Gov. John Kasich. He’s a grownup, a mature public official with an actual record of accomplishment. He’s also got a beating heart that he reveals with great eloquence.

Hillary Clinton also is eminently qualified — on paper — to be the next commander in chief. She’s got a solid public service record. My problem with her? I just don’t trust her completely.

I’m torn. I’m literally undecided on which way to turn when my wife and I walk into the polling place on Tuesday.

My wife wishes we could vote in both primaries; just pick the best candidate either party has to offer — and then decide between whoever wins their parties’ nominations in the fall.

She’s just as torn as I am on what to do next week.

It’s decision time. I might just have to pray about it.

I’m unlikely, though, to say openly who gets my vote. It will become apparent as we move closer toward the general election. Of course, you are free to believe whatever you wish.

GOP frontrunner getting softened up for Democrats?

republican-elephant-668x501

Donald J. Trump is the clear frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination.

I’ll concede that much.

It’s interesting, though, to listen to other Republicans tear into him. It makes me wonder — not that I’m predicting it, given the wackiness of this campaign — whether the intraparty opponents will soften him up for the Democratic candidate who might face him this fall.

Marco Rubio blasts Trump for hiring illegal immigrants to build his hotels. He calls Trump a “con man.”

Ted Cruz accuses Trump of hiring foreign workers over American workers to work in his “world-class companies.”

Former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney challenges Trump to release his tax returns.

Lindsey Graham says his party has gone “bats*** crazy” by backing Trump.

It reminds me a bit of the 1988 Democratic primary campaign when Sen. Al Gore of Tennessee introduced the “Willie Horton” issue to voters, reminding them of how Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis signed off on a furlough for a prison inmate who then went on a crime rampage. Republicans seized on that theme and beat Dukakis senseless with it during the fall campaign that year.

And so it goes.

Nothing about this campaign makes conventional sense.

It might be that all this piling on only will strengthen the Republican frontrunner.

It’s making me crazy, y’all.

 

Campaign hits fever pitch … so very early

aptopix-gop-2016-trump

As we political junkies seek to make sense of that Republican presidential debate bloodbath, I’m trying to grasp the feverishness with which the media are covering this event and its immediate aftermath.

All the mainstream cable news network political reporters are frothing at the mouth over New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s endorsement of Donald J. Trump.

They’re trying to determine how U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio can ride whatever momentum he gained from the Houston dog-and-pony show with his four GOP debate mates.

Some of them were actually aghast at how Trump and Christie “tag teamed” their attacks on Rubio. Indeed, I was utterly flabbergasted as I listened to Trump ridicule Rubio in such a juvenile manner. Listen to this Republican presidential campaign frontrunner try to string sentences together.

Trump is so astonishingly inarticulate that it utterly boggles my mind how in the world we’ve come to this point in this presidential nominating process.

Others were wondering: Whatever happened to U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who figures to do well in the Texas primary coming up Tuesday?

Oh yeah, no one’s talking  today about Ohio Gov. John Kasich or Dr. Ben Carson.

I guess my wonderment lies in how it’s gotten to this pitch so early in what I thought was supposed to be a marathon.

Is this what we’re going to get from now until the nominating conventions adjourn this summer? Or will this white-hot coverage continue until the election this November?

Man, oh man. I don’t know if I have the stamina to keep up with it. I might have tune this out — if only long enough to catch my breath.

And hold on to my sanity.

 

Political bloodbath on tap?

rs-trump-cruz

Five men are set to stand on a debate stage tonight in Houston.

Two of them are likely to unsheathe the long knives to use on each other.

A third man, the frontrunner, also is going to be a target.

Candidates No. 4 and 5?  I just hope they get to get a word in edge-wise.

Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio want to elbow each other out of the way to become the Republican Party “establishment” alternative to Donald J. Trump. For Cruz, the Houston debate has been called his “last stand,” or kind of an Alamo reference.

Rubio faces other obstacles, with polls showing him trailing Trump in his home state of Florida.

I continue to root for Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who’s the fourth-place candidate — but the one who exhibits the most executive and legislative government experience. He’s a grownup, but in this election cycle, political adulthood isn’t seen as a plus. Too bad.

The fifth man on the stage? I sense that this likely will be Dr. Ben Carson’s last bow on the national political stage.

So, let’s watch the debate tonight and see how much “blood” gets spilled.

My sense is that it’s going to be a serious spectator-friendly event.

 

Get ready for possible anti-Trump ‘last stand’

GOP%20Caricatures_Edit

Nevada has weighed in.

Donald J. Trump scored big. Yuuuuge! He won the state’s Republican caucus last night. He’s now being touted by some in the media as the “presumptive” GOP presidential nominee.

Not so fast.

We’ve got a big election date coming up. I won’t predict how it all shakes out, but this could turn out to be the “last stand” of the party’s brass that seeks to derail the Trump Express.

Twelve states are going to the polls. Republicans are taking part in all the primaries. They’re going to award a huge trove of delegates to this summer’s GOP convention in Cleveland.

Oh yeah. Texas is one of them.

The states are mostly scattered through the south and east. Alaska’s voting, too.

So, what happens if Trump runs the table on March 1?

Game over. That’s what the “experts” say.

An interesting debate occurred this morning on one of the cable news shows. It involved discussion over why U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida — one of the three leading contenders for the nomination — won’t unload on Trump. He instead aims his political fire at U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. The question being kicked around was whether Rubio is either afraid of how Trump would respond or if he’s angling for a vice-presidential spot in the event that Trump actually wins the presidential nomination.

I cannot pretend to get into the mind of the young man from Florida.

It’s do or die for two other candidates: Ohio Gov. John Kasich and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson. That’s a given and hardly qualifies as a huge scoop here.

As an interested observer of these things, though, I am going to await the GOP result with decidedly mixed feelings.

I told a friend of mine this morning in an e-mail message that I shudder to think that Republican primary voters have devalued the “essence of the presidency” so much that they actually would nominate a crass, callow, foul-mouthed blowhard to represent their party in an election to elect our head of state.

I won’t predict what they’ll do next Tuesday. Whatever it is, we’d better prepare ourselves for a major political eruption.

 

Ex-CIA boss trashes Trump, Cruz

1scarolina

No one, as far as I can tell, ever has accused Michael Hayden of being a squishy moderate or liberal.

The retired Air Force general led the Central Intelligence Agency during the George W. Bush presidential administration. He knows foreign policy as well as anyone.

Gen. Hayden thinks very little of the credentials of two of the leading Republicans running for president. Imagine that.

Hayden has ripped Donald Trump and Ted Cruz for differing reasons, but the common thread lies in their misunderstanding of what it takes to conduct foreign policy.

The general was critical of Trump’s pledge to bring back waterboarding as an interrogation technique to use on terror suspects.

Trump said: “Believe me, it works. And you know what? If it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway, for what they’re doing. It works.”

Hayden’s response is that the United States doesn’t use certain techniques on suspects because they “deserve it.” He calls Trump’s view of waterboarding a gross misunderstanding of how and why U.S. employ certain tactics against individuals suspected of doing harm.

And what about Sen. Ted Cruz’s pledge to “carpet bomb” Islamic State targets? Hayden calls it “inhumane” and not in keeping with U.S. principles. Cruz once vowed to see if he could get “sand to glow in the dark.”

These tough-talk pledges from individuals seeking the presidency need to be revealed for what they are: reckless bravado aimed at firing up people’s anger and fear.

Gen. Hayden has been at the center of the very issues that candidates such as Trump and Cruz use as political rally applause lines.