The New York Times’ latest attack on Ted Cruz backfires, highlighting his virtues

Ted_Cruz_14Early last week, the New York Times published Frank Bruni’s overwrought essay, Anyone But Ted Cruz. The piece is clearly meant to assassinate Ted Cruz’s character by explaining why conservative voters should hate and fear him as much as Progressives do.

As a preliminary matter, of course, any conservative who accepts advice from the New York Times about preferred Republican candidates is a fool. The Times does not have Republicans’ best interests at heart, and the past fifteen years make it highly questionable whether it has America’s best interests at heart either. Listening to the Times’ advice about Republican candidates is kind of like taking dating advice from Ted Bundy.

But back to Bruni. . . .   After opening with some quick character assassination from the Left, Bruni works hard to explain that it’s not only the obvious suspects – i.e., Leftists – who dislike Cruz, but Republicans as well. His opinion piece is basically a “Dear Conservative voter” letter, claiming that, if these savvy Republican political figures hate Cruz, you, the voter, should too.

Bruni’s problem is that his explanations for Cruz’s unpopularity with Washington D.C.’s “in-crowd” Republicans manage to establish that Cruz has dedicated his entire adult life to advancing American constitutionalism and exceptionalism, notions that mainstream Republicans abandoned long ago. Thus, for anyone who rejects the Leftist and establishment assumptions underlying Bruni’s hit piece, it’s obvious that, during these troubled times at home and abroad, Ted Cruz is not ballot box poison.  Instead, he is the best man to return America to her core values of personal liberty, economic freedom, and national security policies that benefit America and her friends.

There are, of course, some virtues Cruz possesses that no one can deny. Like the defense attorney who tries to immunize his client against the most damning facts by ingenuously acknowledging them when trial begins, Bruni opens his latest piece by accepting that Cruz is likely the ‘smartest man in the room’:

He’s clearly brilliant — maybe smarter than any of the others. He’s a whirlwind of energy. And man oh man can he give a presentation. On any subject, he’s informed, inflamed, precise.

Bruni’s statement comports with the opinion of many people who actually know Ted Cruz, including famed liberal Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. So what is Bruni’s problem with Ted Cruz?

But then you talk with people who’ve worked with [Cruz] at various stages of his career. They dislike him.

No, scratch that.

They loathe him.

Let’s leave aside for a moment whether personal popularity — or skin color or type of sexual organs — should be a reason to vote for a person for President, since the job description for President is based on precisely none of those characteristics. Let’s also ignore for now that the practical experience we’ve gained from our recent experiment in voting for a President based on skin color shows how dangerous identity voting is. Instead, let’s examine at face value Bruni’s claim that Cruz’s lack of popularity should be disqualifying, complete with its insinuation that the lack of popularity arises from some sort of deep, dark character flaw.

Bruni certainly makes the case that Cruz is a polarizing figure in a political world in which Progressives take no prisoners and old-line Republicans valiantly try not to upset the Washington establishment apple cart. The real question for thoughtful voters is whether Cruz is “loathed,” not because he’s loathsome, but because he unnerves the people who need to be unnerved. That question requires delving more deeply into why Congress people, on both the Left and the Right, dislike Cruz.

To explain his own side’s hatred for Cruz, Bruni briefly looks to a Daily Beast article that reveals that, during Cruz’s first year at uber-liberal Princeton College, his roommate did not particularly like him:

His freshman roommate, Craig Mazin, told Patricia Murphy of The Daily Beast: “I would rather have anybody else be the president of the United States. Anyone. I would rather pick somebody from the phone book.

Given that so many hate Cruz for being an unrepentant Constitutional conservative idealist, it is ironic that Bruni’s choice of Mazin’s quotable quote, wittingly or not, plays on arch-conservative William F. Buckley’s famous quip, “I would sooner be governed by the first four hundred names in the Boston telephone directory than by the four hundred members of the faculty of Harvard.” Neither Bruni nor the Daily Beast author seem to pick up on that irony.

Bruni quickly abandons The Daily Beast article to get to the meat of his piece, which is to explain why Republicans also hate Cruz. Before we do the same, it’s worthwhile to delve deeper into the Daily Beast article, both because it explains why Mazin hated his roommate and because (obviously unwittingly from The Daily Beast’s world view) it gives valuable – and highly flattering – insight into the young Cruz.

First, at least as far as The Daily Beast article is concerned, we learn that seemingly the only substantive reason for Mazin’s disliking Cruz was that the 17-year-old Cruz was reading a rather startling book:

“I remember very specifically that he had a book in Spanish and the title was Was Karl Marx a Satanist? And I thought, who is this person?” Mazin says of Ted Cruz. “Even in 1988, he was politically extreme in a way that was surprising to me.”

Wow! A 17-year-old kid – more accurately, a 17-year-old bilingual kid – was reading a wacky book. For Progressives and mainline Republicans, that’s certainly a reason to hate him twenty-seven years later.

As an aside, Karl Marx probably wasn’t a Satanist, but he was most certainly a hate-filled anti-Semite whose writing unleashed a worldwide killing spree that, over 150 years, has murdered hundreds of millions of people everywhere from Russia to China to Germany to North Korea to all points in between. The irony is that few people today would label as extremists those who read Karl Marx or, worse, who think he’s brilliant. Instead, these people are just referred to as “Bernie Sanders supporters.”

The Daily Beast article reveals something more interesting than a silly book, which is that, when young Cruz erred, he then repented and reformed, at great cost to himself:

Cruz also angered a number of upperclassmen his freshman year when he joined in a regular poker game and quickly ran up $1,800 in debt to other students from his losses. Cruz’s spokeswoman, Catherine Frazier, said Cruz acknowledges playing in the poker games, which he now considers “foolish.”

He went to his aunt, who worked at a bank in Dallas, and borrowed $1,800 from her, which he paid in cash and promptly quit the game,” Frazier told The Daily Beast, explaining that Cruz worked two jobs and made monthly payments to his aunt for the next two years to repay the debt.

So to recap: a 17-year-old away from home for the first time foolishly gambled away money he did not have. Rather than walking away from what the British used to call “a debt of honor” or passing the debt on to his parents, he instead went to a reliable person for a loan, fully repaid his gambling debt, and then worked extremely hard to repay his loan. Moreover, there’s no indication that Cruz subsequently had a gambling problem. So not only did he face up to his failure, he learned from it. Call me old-fashioned, but that strikes me as laudable, not disgraceful, conduct.

Nor, despite Princeton’s overwhelmingly Progressive student body and faculty, was Cruz without friends:

While Cruz may have been disliked, and intensely so, by many of his classmates, he found a close and longtime friend in a gregarious, popular student from Jamaica named David Panton, who became Cruz’s tag-team partner on Princeton’s renowned debate squad, as well as his roommate for the remainder of their time at Princeton and when they both attended Harvard Law School.

Unlike what others may say, I consider Ted to be very kind. He is a very, very gentle-hearted person,” Panton told <em>The Daily Beast</em>. “He took me under his wing and was a mentor to me. He was very kind to me. I am a much smarter and much better person today because of Ted Cruz.”

Panton’s statement is a lovely encomium. Additionally, given our nation’s current obsession with identity politics, it seems worthwhile to point out something about the Jamaican-born Panton:  he’s black.  In other words, both Panton, who had a Hispanic friend in Cruz, and Cruz, who had a black friend in Panton, truly heeded Martin Luther King’s dictum, with each judging the other by the content of his character, rather than by the color of his skin.  That speaks well of both men, who at a young age already had a principled belief that character matters.

Cruz and Panton were a dynamic debating duo, and their experience shows that Cruz was indeed brilliant, that he was socially comfortable, that he worked extremely hard, and that he was willing to mentor others to help them along as well

Cruz and Panton debated together for four years at Princeton and came to dominate the collegiate parliamentary debate circuit, winning the North American championships in 1992 and being named the top two collegiate debaters in the country (Cruz was No. 1). The competitive debate world also gave Cruz a different social circle, with fellow debaters congregating in his room to hang out and play Super Mario Bros. Debate weekends included Friday night parties that Cruz often attended, where he was remembered to be “sort of a stud” with girls on the debate circuit. Princeton debaters also said he spent extra time mentoring them to improve their skills, even though they competed against each other.

Cruz’s long-term friendship with Panton allows Panton to offer a deeper insight about Cruz than we get from Mazin’s simplistic scorn regarding Cruz’s reading material. It turns out that, as his supporters have known all along, Cruz is a bone deep conservative, as opposed to the unprincipled weathervane many in the GOP are trying to suggest that he is:

Throughout those years, Cruz and Panton remained friends, and Panton still speaks highly of him, saying with praise that the one word that describes Cruz best is “consistent.”

He’s not someone who shifts in the wind,” Panton says. “The Ted Cruz that I knew at 17 years old is exactly the same as the Ted Cruz I know at 42 years old. He was very conservative then, and an outspoken conservative. He remains strongly conservative today.”

Even at a young age, Cruz understood what his conservativism was about. Unlike today’s screeching Progressive college students, Cruz wasn’t a conservative because it was trendy (which it wasn’t during his time at Princeton, just as it isn’t now), nor was he unthinkingly following his parents’ lead, as so many less politically aware young people do. Instead, he delved deep into his ideas:

That [conservative] consistency reveals itself in Cruz’s senior thesis, which he completed under the mentorship of Robert George, a professor of jurisprudence whom The New York Times called “the reigning brain of the Christian right.” [Talk about your dog whistles.]

Cruz’s thesis, “Clipping the Wings of Angels,” quoted James Madison in the Federalist Papers saying in part that, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Cruz focused on the history and theory behind the Ninth and 10th [sic] Amendments in a constitutional defense that reads like a speech he could give at any Tea Party event in the country.

The time-capsule quality of Cruz’s politics is lost on no one who knew him at Princeton, none of whom could point to a political position that he held 25 years ago that he does not seem to still hold today. For some, that amounts to a laudably consistent belief system. For others, it reveals a man of calcified thinking, dangerously impervious to facts, reality, and a changing world.

For Progressives, it is damning that Sen. Cruz has not “evolved” and, instead, has remained “dangerously impervious to facts, reality and a changing world.” That indictment is true, however, only if one is holding the wrong idea for too long.

Thankfully, some people do manage to outgrow bad ideas. After all, we all live in hope that today’s neurasthenic college students will outgrow their narcissistic, hate-filled Progressive identity politics and eventually step into the adult world.  But let’s ignore those boring infants at America’s institutions of higher education and, instead, concentrate on Cruz’s supposed inability to adapt to a “changing world.”

While Progressives love to wave around the word “change” as a banner of modernity, the fact is that some things never change, especially those universal, core values on which our nation was founded. The French nailed it when they said plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose (“the more things change, the more they remain the same”). While our world may be “changing” in superficial terms, with different enemies and different allies, the challenges we face, although clothed in modern terms, are virtually identical to the issues that our ancestors have dealt with over and during the centuries.

What is at issue in politics today can be simplified to this: Are we to be the nation our Founders envisioned when they crafted our Constitution using Enlightenment ideals, or are we to adopt the Progressive world view and policies that come to us from the French Revolution and Karl Marx (ideas and policies, incidentally, that have never worked, no matter where or when they’ve been tried)?

The Enlightenment and the French Revolution present polar opposite views of humanity, economics, and government. The Enlightenment stood for individual rights and responsibility; equality of opportunity; traditional, Judeo-Christian morality and ethics; free market capitalism; and political power vested in the people through representative government.

By contrast, the French Revolution, which Karl Marx then reduced to a turgid polemic, stood for individuals subordinated to government; forced equality of outcome; welfare; government as the arbiter of morality; economic socialism, with government dictating what may be bought and what may be sold, leavened only by crony capitalism; and tyrannical authoritarian government, with elite, top-down rule.

The Enlightenment view is pragmatic about the human condition. It sees man as imperfect and tries to harness his better angels while minimizing his baser instincts. The French Revolution view is utopian. It is predicated on the belief that raw government power can perfect society.

These are not new issues that have only arisen because of a modern, “changing world.” Both ideas – the Enlightenment and the Revolutionary/Marxian world view – synthesize government structures  and social constructs going back as far as the Bible and the ancient classical world.

Enlightenment thinkers, after conducting a historical survey, concluded that the best societies were those that were most free, with open systems that naturally, and without coercion, channeled men’s best and worst qualities in ways that served both the individual and society at large. The French Revolution and Karl Marx, for all their talk of liberty and equality, took their lead from those societies in which a self-appointed elite, with force of arms, laid down the law for everyone else, presumably for the masses’ betterment.

Only a historical illiterate thinks any Progressive ideas are modern reflections of unique events in a “changing world.” We need only one example to prove how stale Progressive ideas are:  Look at the ancient idea that a sovereign can impose penalties or laws on individuals without a representative body’s approval. That idea is perfectly mirrored today in our regulatory bureaucracy that, taking its cue from the nation’s top executive, creates legislation that not only exceeds the legislation our elected representatives passed, but in many cases opposes Congress’s explicit refusal to pass such legislation. This issue of non-representative government, which is anchored in America thanks to our 18th century Revolution, was already at the core of England’s Glorious Revolution (1688), its Civil War (1642-1651), and the Magna Carta itself (1215).

In America today, we are in a zero sum competition between the Progressives’ view, derived from the French Revolution and Marx, and the Constitutional conservatives’ view, derived from the Enlightenment and our Constitution. There is no question that Progressives view the Constitution as an irritating impediment to their ideology, that they will eternally seek to amend it through judicial fiat or go around it through the regulatory bureaucracy, and that they will demonize anyone who opposes their policies, just as Bruni is trying to do with Cruz. That Progressive world view, more than anything, explains the Left’s utter antipathy to and hatred for Ted Cruz, who is very much a Constitutionalist and who loudly espouses ideals that come directly out of The Enlightenment.

Going back to the fact that Ted Cruz has never abandoned his fealty to our Constitutional form of governance, intelligent people understand that “self-evident truths” about each individual’s innate worth, about equality, and about freedom, are universal and timeless. They do not need to be revamped every time the political wind blows. Instead, as the political winds blow and times change, the only sane thing to do is precisely what Cruz has done: to delve deeper into those ideas and values, cultivate them, spread them, and generally use them to preserve individual liberty, the free market, and the rule of law, all of which are integral to a healthy, prosperous, and stable society.  The alternative — jettisoning those values in favor of elite-led authoritarianism – spells the end of American liberty, prosperity, and security.

Now that we’ve established not just that Progressives hate Ted Cruz (a given), but why they hate Ted Cruz (which requires some deep thinking about freedom), it’s time to turn to Bruni’s contention that mainstream Republicans hate Cruz too . . . implying that conservatives should follow their leaders. Bruni therefore spends the rest of his article spinning endless anecdotes that purportedly prove that Republicans hate Cruz with every bit as much passion as those on the Left, not because of his ideas but just because he’s . . . Ted Cruz:

It’s not easy to come across on-the-record quotes like that, and Mazin’s words suggest a disdain that transcends ideology. They bear heeding.


The political strategist Matthew Dowd, who worked for Bush back then, tweeted that “if truth serum was given to the staff of the 2000 Bush campaign,” an enormous percentage of them “would vote for Trump over Cruz.”

Another Bush 2000 alumnus said to me: “Why do people take such an instant dislike to Ted Cruz? It just saves time.”

His three signature moments in the Senate have been a florid smearing of Chuck Hagel with no achievable purpose other than attention for Ted Cruz, a flamboyant rebellion against Obamacare with no achievable purpose other than attention for Ted Cruz, and a fiery protest of federal funding for Planned Parenthood with no achievable purpose other than attention for Ted Cruz. Notice any pattern?

Asked about Cruz at a fund-raiser last spring, John Boehner responded by raising a lone finger — the middle one.

Bruni’s laundry of Ted Cruz horribles raises several issues: First, one has to applaud the collected snark in the article. Any conservative with a working sense of humor has to laugh at the “it just saves time” remark.

Second, we cannot afford to lose sight of the false theory underlying the claim that establishment figures are so put off by Cruz that they would rather vote for Trump. A vote for Trump certainly can’t be because Trump is less “abrasive” and more of a “team player” than Cruz. Trump’s is popular right now precisely because he seems willing to buck the system and is not bound by political correctness.

The reality is that Trump, unlike Cruz and unlike Trump’s own inflammatory rhetoric, is not a conservative. He is, instead, a somewhat xenophobic crony capitalist who in the past has probably sided more often with Progressive policies than with conservative policies, including policies such as single payer healthcare and eminent domain.

As Taylor Millard at Hot Air observed: “Trump isn’t a conservative and to paint him as one is ridiculous. There’s a ton of anger out there and all Trump is doing is tapping into it by pretending to be a populist.” For all Trump’s bombast, no one should expect him to upset the apple cart in office and to work to reestablish the Enlightenment principals written into our Constitution.

In other words, mainstream Republicans are comfortable with abrasive, bombastic, political figures.  That being the case, their real beef with Cruz can be found in the third issue Bruni’s article raises:

Third, when the establishment politicians in the Republican party, the ones whom Bruni quotes, savage Cruz, it’s obvious that they want someone who, unlike Cruz, won’t upset the status quo. This is the status quo that sees Republicans in the Obama era meekly follow the Democrats, distinguishing themselves only by the fact that they periodically ask querulously “But can we really afford to do this?”

Serious voters need to look beyond mainstream Republican showboating claims about how Republicans are doing everything they can to oppose Obama’s policies at home and abroad.  They’re not.

The reality is that in 2010, 2012 and particularly 2014, we’ve seen wave elections for Republicans at the Federal and State level. Looking at the three combined elections, Republicans now control more Federal and State government legislative and executive positions than at any time in the past century and, likely, than at any time since the era of Reconstruction, right after the Democrats lost the Civil War.

Those three wave elections came about for one reason – the voters responded to the path Obama and the Progressive Left were and are taking this country. These elections should therefore have resulted in a resurgent Republican Congress wielding the voters’ mandate to oppose Obama at every opportunity. And yet, what have those elections actually accomplished? The answer, at least from the perspective of conservative and Constitutional voters, is that these elections have accomplished nothing.

For the past five years, right up until this past week, Republicans have not made a single serious attempt to roll back Obamacare or any of Obama’s other deeply unpopular policies at home and abroad, whether we’re talking about immigration, economic policy, taxation, climate change mitigation, or foreign policy. Moreover, despite the voters’ conservative mandate, Republicans are supine when Obama pursues many of these same policies using manifestly unconstitutional means or engages in administrative acts of appalling corruption and ineptitude.

No matter what Obama does, Republicans, who have complete control over the power of the purse, have done nothing on these issues, other than a few symbolic, and utterly meaningless, gestures that were designed to fail.  As Ace says, at his popular site, Ace of Spades, the Republicans are engaged in nothing more than Kabuki theater.

For instance, Republicans have only recently conspired with the administration to treat the Iran Deal as something other than a treaty, thereby willfully denying the Senate a voice in and a vote over what may be the most consequential national security issue of our time. We’ve also watched as Republicans have tried desperately to renew the Export Import Bank, which is the very symbol of crony capitalism.

No wonder that many on the right see no difference between Progressives and Republicans in Congress. At their worst, Republican Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appear merely to mouth opposition while willingly going along with the Progressives; at their best, they appear incompetent and spineless.

Ted Cruz stands out from – and is therefore hated by – establishment Republicans precisely because he is neither complicit with Progressives, nor is he either incompetent or spineless. He is an unrepentant Constitutionalist, thus explaining why the Left would rather see “anyone but Ted Cruz” in the White House. He also has the courage of his convictions. He alone has stood up on the issues for which he was elected and sent to the Senate.

Bruni tries to undercut Cruz’s political courage with a flow of florid negative adjectives and trite expressions: “arrogance,” a “thirst for the spotlight,” “abrasive,” “obnoxiousness,” and “refusal to be a team player.” Before buying into Bruni’s spin, let’s take a look at the specific “signature moments” that Bruni identifies as indicative of everything wrong with Ted Cruz.

Cruz’s first alleged sin was what Bruni calls “a florid smearing of Chuck Hagel with no achievable purpose other than attention for Ted Cruz.” In fact, Ted Cruz justified his opposition to Chuck Hagel’s nomination to serve as Secretary Defense on principled grounds that he fully explained in a USA Today op-ed. The piece is polite, fact-based and, in retrospect, eerily prescient.

Cruz’s concern about Hagel’s support for Israel, a long-time U.S. ally and the only true democracy in the medieval, chaotic, and blood-thirsty Middle East, has proven correct. Both before and after his nomination, Hagel has cheerfully worked for years to isolate Israel and to leave her vulnerable to a full-scale Iranian nuclear attack.

Cruz’s concern about Hagel’s “willingness to accept rogue states as legitimate players on the international stage on par with our friends,” has proven to be correct as well. While Israel is in the dog house, the Obama administration, presumably with Hagel’s support, has entered into a non-treaty treaty that, read literally, obligates America to protect Iran’s nuclear infrastructure against any attacks, including presumably attacks from an anxious Israel that knows she’s in Iran’s nuclear crosshairs.

To see just how prescient Cruz was when he challenged Hagel, you really should read his entire op-ed. In addition to the two examples above, every point Cruz raised to oppose Hagel’s nomination has proven to be fully justified. That a go-along-to-get-along Congress eventually approved Hagel’s nomination hardly means that Cruz’s concerns were a smear, unjustified, or attention seeking.

Bruni also identifies as Cruz’s second and third signature sins his “flamboyant rebellion against Obamacare” and against “Planned Parenthood.”  Let’s put those in perspective by focusing in Obamacare.

Republicans control Congress.  They were elected in wave elections by voters anxious to roll back Obamacare.  Yet when it came time to vote on funding bills, these same Republicans opted to fund Obamacare.

Of all the people in the Senate, Cruz was the one who took a principled stand, and for that he was vilified on the Left and Right.  But to paint his opposition in those three “signature moments” as having no “achievable purpose” is ridiculous.  It is akin to pronouncing the defense of the 300 at Thermopylae as useless because the Spartans could not win the battle.

Cruz’s stigmatized “signature moments” have had three important and pronounced effects:  First, they showed Cruz’s fidelity to principle and his willingness to take the heat for that fidelity. (Harry “if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen” Truman would have understood and approved.)

Second, they put supine Republican Congresscritters on notice that their passivity and willingness to accept the Progressive plan were not acceptable to the people that voted them into office. And guess what? Congress has gotten that message. Boehner abandoned the speakership rather than face what amounts to a no-confidence vote. And in what can only be seen as vindication, just last week the Senate voted to repeal key Obamacare provisions and to defund Planned Parenthood. The voters have spoken, Cruz has led the way, and now his party is following him.

Third, and quite ironically, Cruz’s “signature moments” paved the way for Trump to pick up the gauntlet Cruz tossed at both parties. Trump is currently running, not on his own Democrat Progressive record, but on the canard that he, rather than Cruz, is the unrepentant conservative in the race willing to bring about real change.

At the end of his article, Bruni notes:

Many politicians rankle peers. Many have detractors. Cruz generates antipathy of an entirely different magnitude. It’s so pronounced and so pervasive that he’s been forced to acknowledge it, and he spins it as the price invariably paid by an outsider who challenges the status quo, clings to principle and never backs down.

And there, in what he believes is that final nail in Cruz’s coffin, Bruni exposes the main flaw in his brutal attempted character assassination: He has failed to prove that Cruz suffers from an actual character flaw, such as being immoral, an inveterate liar, weak-willed, stupid, or a person motivated purely by naked ambition and devoid of any fundamental principles. (Incidentally, if you’re looking for actual examples of those character flaws in 2016 presidential contenders, the leading Democrat candidates could do with a bit of scrutiny.) Instead, Bruni succeeds only in proving that Cruz’s real sin, at least to the Times, is that he is now, and always has been, an unshakable conservative.

One last comment on Bruni’s article. At one point he states that “More and more Republican insiders talk about a battle between Cruz and Marco Rubio for the nomination, or about a three-way, if you will, among Cruz, Rubio and Trump.”  (Emphasis added.)

That little clause, “if you will,” reveals that Bruni is not using the expression “three way” in its ordinary political or game-playing sense.  Instead, it is a dubious homosexual entendre revealing one of the more unsavory aspects of any debate with a Progressive, which is that, sooner or later, no matter the topic, they manage to drag it down with references to sex or fecal matter. Bruni’s low-rent sex joke has no place in a political opinion piece in a publication that hangs grimly on to its entirely undeserved reputation as the nation’s “paper of record.”

This throwaway is on par with Anderson Cooper’s sleazy reference to members of the Tea Party – a group of law-abiding citizens who objected to Obamacare and other excessive, often unconstitutional charges on the middle- and working-classes — as “tea baggers,” an allusion to a gay oral sex practice. That the Times published Bruni’s innuendo says every bit as much about the Left’s and Bruni’s character as Cruz’s poker story says about him.

In sum, Bruni’s opinion piece, while mean-spirited and intemperate, usefully exposes what voters need to understand about the coming election: The Progressives’ approach to a “changed” world is authoritarian, often anti-American, and certainly anti-middle and working class. To the extent that Progressives’ policies have rendered our country more vulnerable and our world more dangerous, the best possible candidate is Ted Cruz, who has spent his life devoted to the principle that our Constitution exists to limit our government, enhance our freedom, and protect us against enemies both foreign and domestic.

(Note: While I’d love to take all the credit for this post, that would be a lie. I worked on it closely with a friend who insists on remaining anonymous, but whose contribution is inextricably intertwined with my own writing. Thank you, friend.)

This piece has been edited since it was first published to (a) insert two paragraphs that WordPress capriciously deleted (more than once); and (b) to correct a few obvious (and, of course, embarrassing) typos.

  • RobertArvanitis

    I like Cruz.
    But too often facts and logic have nothing to do with elections and big RINO donors now make noise about preferring Hillary to Trump.
    Give the irrational world – if he gets past Trump, can Cruz beat Hillary?

    • Michael Hiteshew

      I absolutely think the majority of Americans are looking for a choice other than Hillary.

    • The big RINO donors haven’t helped Jeb! who hemorrhages money and keeps dropping in the polls.

      Don’t underestimate Cruz. The left is scared to death of him. He ran as an unknown against the RINO Lt. Gov of Texas who had 3x the war chest for the open senate seat and soundly trounced him. They also can’t smear him except by lying outright. The left is hoping Trump is the nominee. Trump has been friends to the Clinton’s–I personally think he’s a foil to get Hillary the presidency.

      • Mary Jo

        Yep..and Cruz’s game plan and ground game for the 2012 Senate seat is successful again this time. David Dewhurst, the Rino you mention had so much more money and WE THE PEOPLE WON!

    • Mary Jo

      The Establishment RINO donors especially disliked Reagan. I think that is what we what we need to focus on. Cruz is getting support form northern states and blue collar workers. (Reagan Democrats) A recent piece indicated his numbers were up in Massachusetts, too. Cruz 2016!

      • The establishment RINO donors, Mary Jo, are too often indistinguishable from Democrats. They’re just slightly fiscally more responsible Democrats . . . although even that hasn’t been true in the Obama era.

        • PoqVaUSA

          Heck, even Trump admitted that he “buttered the bread on both sides” so to speak. Trump would contribute to both political parties in order to have influence with whichever side won the election. The large contributors to the Democrats and to the Establishment Republicans are often not just indistinguishable, they are in fact one and the same!

    • If nothing else, RobertArvanitis, I sure would love to see a Cruz versus Hillary debate….

      • PoqVaUSA

        Yes! Can you imagine if Hillary faced someone who actually had a handle on these things called FACTS, and TRUTH? It makes me happy just to think about it. 🙂

    • PoqVaUSA

      My concern is the extent to which the counting of votes will be distorted this time around. The only reason why Democrats are so paranoid about “voter suppression” by the right is the the need for voter ID and other reforms is to counter an actual ‘thing’.

      YES, voter ID is INTENDED to discriminate…
      * against dead people
      * against people who respond to phone surveys as ‘unlikely to vote’, and then have somebody kindly vote on their behalf
      * against people voted already somewhere else

      I would like to see Cruz have such a ‘mandate’ that he will swamp the corruption of the vote. If Trump runs as 3rd party, he might succeed in throwing the race to the Democrats.

    • Jayson Cooke

      Cruz can absolutely beat Hillary, by a landslide. I can’t wait for a debate between these two. Absolute worst case scenario for Hillary who can’t ever remember her own double-talk. Cruz is smart, principled and if you have ever seen him field tough questions, his response is some of the strongest counter punching I’ve seen in American politics in a long long time.
      Check out a video where he is interrupted by Code Pink (google it) while discussing the Iran deal and you will see what I mean.

  • Michael Hiteshew

    …when the establishment politicians in the Republican party, the ones whom Bruni quotes, savage Cruz, it’s obvious that they want someone who, unlike Cruz, won’t upset the status quo.

    Agree, that’s been my take all along. It’s also interesting that to the left, Number of Facebook Friends = Qualifications for President. That’s the Hollywood Left in a nutshell, of which Craig Mazin is a card carrying member. Popularity = box office in Hollywood, so it equals power and influence. It’s how their world works.

    In governing, what’s more important is a knowledge of social and political philosophy, of economics, and of history. You need to know what works and what doesn’t and where policies will lead. It also requires an ability to lead and persuade, which is where Ted Cruz may need more work. It’s why Trump is doing well.

    So some in Hollywood and the NYT hate Ted Cruz? Those count as endorsements to me. You know people not just by their friends, but by those who hate and despise them. All the right people despise Ted Cruz. That’s good news for America.

    • I don’t think anyone can ever accuse the Left of having depth or genuine knowledge. They’d like to run the country exactly like a high school or college, and if that isn’t a scary thought, I don’t know what is.

      • TaxPaying American Voter

        And you would have this racist, fascist, theocrat waste your tax money, kill your children and leave your elderly helpless…….yeah, you have it figured out. The lies from your DO-NOTHING congress is well documented. This time in history will mark the end of the dumbing down of America and the end of the GOP. America will not live on HATE OR FEAR.

        • Michael Hiteshew

          You left out climate change. I’m pretty sure that’s supposed to be first on the list of talking points.

          • TaxPaying American Voter

            F#ck climate change for now. It’s time to eject the do-nothing congress and wake the hell up. There are actually folks such as yourself, that got an “f” in science and wear that with badge of honor. It shows.

        • DavidIAmAndrewBreitbartRoss

          You wouldn’t know a racist, fascist theocrat if your life depended upon it. After all you voted for Barack Obama. You’d be hard pressed to find a more strident one.

          • TaxPaying American Voter

            You obviously can’t read a book, or you would bother to look up what those big words mean. Go play with the children’s websites. When your reading comprehension improves, doubtful, come join the ADULTS that actually PAY taxes. No sane adult sees Turd Cruz as presidential material, just bible thumping, racist, corporate koch suckers as yourself. Enjoy..

          • Michael Hiteshew

            Like the Wicked Witch of the West, you can always tell when a leftist has been somewhere by the insane raving and vile nastiness they leave in their wake.

          • DavidIAmAndrewBreitbartRoss

            Woah my friend, no need to increase your dosage just on my account. If you are the definition of sanity then count me in the other camp because I want NONE of what you’ve got. We’ve already established that since “sane” adults elected the current fascist everything else you belch as fact should be scrutinized. And since you mentioned it I’d suggest you take a community college course on fascism. Currently we have a dictator which is step numero uno in achieving a fascist state. Can you say Executive Order President? Pass it in order to see what’s in it? Ha, you half cocked Progressives make my day!

    • PoqVaUSA

      We as a nation also need someone of principle who will restore a constitutional balance of power to our government. I doubt that Trump as Chief Executive will be willing to share power with the Legislative Branch, or as head of the Federal Government will be willing to share power with the States, as required by our Constitution.

      Trump, along with showing leadership has shown a capacity for petty vindictiveness, towards a disabled reporter and towards Megyn Kelly, that recommend against him being President of the United States and all that goes with it.

      Trump’s track record to date is all over the map, so it’s difficult to say just WHAT he would do once in office. Even so, I don’t see Trump being against Big Government working hand in glove with Big Business.

      Ted Cruz, on the other hand, has a proven track record of standing up for conservative principles and for the Constitution. Anyone who accuses Cruz of being soft in the area of leadership doesn’t know him very well, yet.

      • MGB

        And you can honestly say Obama hasn’t been vindictive?

        • PoqVaUSA

          MGB: Obama’s been vindictive as he11! I don’t get your point.

          The reason that Obama announced the take-down of Bin Laden on the night that it happened rather than waiting for the intelligence that was gathered to be ‘developed’ properly first is because he didn’t want to get “scooped” on bragging about what a great thing he did(!).

          There was a story that came out about a CIA operation to prevent a plot to take down a commercial aircraft. The press sat on the story for ~5 days our of concern for national security. After that was no longer a concern, the press were asked to sit on the story for ~2 more days so that Obama could make the announcement. The story was released, and the Dept. of Justice went after the phone records of not just the reporter, but all of the AP and Fox News in order to try to identify the source of the information. Obama wasn’t so concerned about national security as he was about getting to make the announcement himself. That’s one time the press actually pushed back against Obama’s overreach.

    • Jayson Cooke

      Nailed it. Have you seen UnsavoryAgents Dot com Website? Google it….

  • blick

    A NYT’s hit piece is an endorsement for me. McCain and Romney were establishment candidates and look where that got us –BHO and destruction of the country.

    • I agree, blick, but it’s still worth deconstructing the NYT’s garbage, since it does speak for the more foolish, and sometimes more evil, half of America.

    • TaxPaying American Voter

      He just brought out the kkk to the front. Check out all things that he actually got DONE. CONGRESS= 0 Repukes= 0, worst congress in 237 years fact. I’m just glad to see the end of the party of uneducated finally going extinct from stupidity.

  • NewWest 123

    I doubt very many supporters of the constitution and rule of law care much about what this rag and others rags spew! I sure don’t!

    • Sickofliberallies

      I wouldn’t wipe my dogs a.. with this liberal rag.

      • TaxPaying American Voter

        You can’t accept facts over your racist opinions.

        • Sickofliberallies

          No moron, it is you who cannot accept facts over your delusional socialistic fantasies. Your moniker is even a bigger joke than you throwing the race card as there are NO Obama supporters or liberals that actually PAY taxes.

    • Perhaps because I live in Marin County, even many Republican voters still care about the NYT. These are people who, like me, spent a large part of their lives thinking they were Democrats. They need to be weaned gently from their knee jerk reliance on the drive-by media.

      • NewWest 123

        We don’t have time for pussy footing! If people need to be led gently to intelligence and common sense then it seems to me that it would be a waste of time. I,would,much rather chat with someone that caught on hmmm, about 7 years ago.

    • Yo2mas

      You care so little you read it and commented. Thou dost protest too much, me thinks.

  • Heartlander


    Something got deleted at about the 3/4 mark in your piece. Can you edit the post and restore what went missing?

    Here’s the passage I’m talking about:

    To see just how prescient Cruz was when he challenged Hagel, you really should read his entire op-ed. In addition to the two examples above, every point Cruz raised to oppose Hagel’s nomination has proven to be fully justified. That a go-along-to-get-along Congress eventually approved Hagel’s nomination hardly means that Cruz’s concerns were a smear, unjustified, or attention seeking.

    In fact, Cruz’s stigmatized “signature moments” have had three important and pronounced effects: First, they showed Cruz’s fidelity to principle and willingness to take the heat for that fidelity. (Harry “if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen” Truman would have understood and approved.)

    You see what I mean? The context is: You had just been rebutting Bruni’s “three signature moments” where Cruz supposedly proved himself to be nothing but a showboat. First was Chuck Hagel, second was Obamacare, third was Planned Parenthood funding. Well, you spent several excellent paragraphs rebutting the Chuck Hagel charge, so what we’re expecting next is rebuttal of signature moments two and three — but all that we see is a link, and then that same link repeated. Then you següe into the EFFECTS of those three signature moments, which assumes that all three moments have just been dealt with. But they haven’t; only the Chuck Hagel issue has.

    Am I making any sense? Anyhow, the whole piece is so wonderful, I want to send it to everyone I know — but before I do, I wondered if somehow a couple of paragraphs got lost, and if so, could they be restored….

    • Thanks so much, Heartlander. The bizarre things is that I’d corrected that before I published the first time — and it came out wrong. Than, I corrected it a second time — and again it came out wrong. Let’s see whether this correction sticks. I can only assume there’s something hinky going on with WordPress, because these deletions that revert incomplete drafts make no sense.

  • Buddy

    They do try and with some Gruber’s, they succeed, but their bias remains, blatant.

    NYT: Cruz NASTY Newcomer:

    NYT: VERY Junior Senator:

    NBC: Ted Cruz a Conservative FIREBRAND Who Throws Rhetorical BOMBS:

    Headline for Democrats….

    NYT: NY Junior Senator Gillibrand DOGGEDLY REFUSING to Play the Part:

    NYT: Tulsi Gabbard, Democrat Junior Member Congress “Makes Her Mark Defying Democrat Party”:

    • Wolf Howling

      Ahhh, Tulsi Gabbard. She’s a rarity; one of the few intellectually honest people on the left side of the aisle. If the NYT wants to talk her up, I’m okay with that one.

    • Buddy: I always wonder if their word choices are deliberate or if they’re so marinated in Progressivism and hatred for conservative thinkers and politicians that this is their default way of thinking and writer.

    • PoqVaUSA

      Yeah, Gruber is a rather descriptive term.

  • MGB

    NYT & Bruni just show they are no more than pieces of cow dung.

    • MGB: Because I consider the Left to be the Party of Poop, I prefer to think of the NYT & Bruni as mindless party hacks, rather than in “dung-y” terms. 😉

      • MGB

        With all due respect it’s all the same poop, dung, flaps! It’s all excrement.

        • You’re right, of course, MGB, it’s just that, having for years now pointed out the Left’s obsession with excrement, both real and verbal, I have to refrain from using those words myself so that I don’t get accused of a scatological double standard. 😉

          • MGB

            I am free to use those words. Plus they smell like steamy chicken crap piled high on a hot day.

          • PoqVaUSA

            It’s not a QUESTION of whether you are free to use those terms. It’s just that when you do, some people might have trouble distinguishing you from… a Democrat! 😮

          • TaxPaying American Voter

            Don’t want your grasp of stupidity and big words to be confused with reality or those fact thingys.

          • TaxPaying American Voter

            Don’t worry you are completely bulging at the seams with complete bull feces. You love to think you actually know the economy and our nation living in your mom’s basement up north? Hilarious. Now go get a job, take off the foil hat, quit bitching, and actually DO something.

      • TaxPaying American Voter

        Don’t do yourself any favors. Stop trying to think. You are wrong on all counts. The ONION is NOT a reference source.

  • Obama Loves ISIS

    Liberal trash. Nothing more.

  • MicahStone

    Trump-Cruz = two back to back 8 year terms to RESTORE AMERICA’S GREATNESS. Fantastic !!!

    • PoqVaUSA

      Ted Cruz will never be Trump’s VP. Cruz would be more effective staying as a Senator from Texas. In that capacity Cruz would do two things:

      (1) help Pres. Trump get conservative bills through the Senate, and
      (2) oppose Pres. Trump when he tries to usurp powers from the Legislative Branch, or from the State governments.

      Trump is no respecter of the Constitution, or the limits that it places on Executive powers. We’ve already suffered through 7 years under the current Dictator-In-Chief, and I don’t know whether our Republic could survive another 4 to 8 years of that.

  • Claudia Bird

    Fantastic journalism!

  • karl_lembke
  • diana harrell

    LMAO like we are going to believe anything that comes out of their liberal demoncrat mouth. Maybe the people that follows them votes without researching the one they are voting for. The rest of us not only research our chosen candidate we go way back to see what they voted for/against. Ted Cruz has been a straight arrow with what he says and what he has done and what he will do. Scares the crap out of liberal demoncrats…………That is wonderful and I love it. The people that follow them would not be voting for a real candidate for president anyway. Besides the only choice the demoncrat party has given anyone is a old washed up foolish socialist or a corrupted old hag that holars and bellows like a stuck cow and is such a dam liar even the FBI has proven what a piece of work she really is, so the libs have to do what they do best. LIE, CHEAT, DESTROY.

    • Diana Harrell: I know a lot of Marin County Republicans who, based upon Ivy League educations 30 or 40 years ago, still reflexively look to the New York Times for intelligent analysis. It’s therefore worthwhile to counter someone like Bruni, who has a bully pulpit and a common mind. There are good people out there who still yearn, just a little bit, for that “Paper of Record” Kool-Aid.

    • TaxPaying American Voter

      Look at our progress since the last POTUS. You show your intelligence by ignoring all FACTS. Try cracking open a book or two, (not coloring), and become informed instead of being opinionated and ignorant……

      • PoqVaUSA

        “The people that follow them [the NY Times] would not be voting for a real candidate for president anyway.”

        I take it that statement doesn’t apply to every reader of the NY Times, but it is obvious that it applies specifically to YOU.

        The only reason you are critical of Cruz is that you want an easier opponent (like Trump) to go up against Hillary (or whoever her stand-in is after she goes to jail for mishandling classified material).

        • TaxPaying American Voter

          Dead cat, proven based on lies. Try again.

    • TaxPaying American Voter

      He can’t wipe his own ass. Even his family uses the A.C.A. Hilarious. This is NOT a christian tealiban country. Sorry about your opinions, they are wrong. Leave if you can’t force your archaic beliefs on others.

  • magzie01950

    What a wonderful world it would be Cruz 2016.

    • Agreed, magzie01950.

    • TaxPaying American Voter

      For whom. Not ANY American. Especially anyone who actually has a J-O-B. MAYBE pray for guidance…….
      This fraud of a candidate wipes his ass with our Constitution. Walk his ass to Cuba.

      • PoqVaUSA

        I’m just wondering… Are you a Democrat of a Trumpocrat? It’s getting difficult to tell the difference these days.

        • TaxPaying American Voter

          Feel the Bern………

  • Roy_Lofquist

    Bravo, Book. That’s one fine piece of writing.

    The constancy of human nature – “Fallout” is one of the most successful and popular video game series ever. The opening line of all of the games: “War. War never changes”.

    • Thanks for the kind words, Roy_Lofquist.

  • Sonja

    There is still a paragraph doubled in the middle. But, despite that, I wholehearted agree with this article and have found it more succinct and understandable about what is wrong with both the Progressive Left and the Go Along to Get Along Right. More than just endorsing Cruz, everyone should read this just to understand the history of the parties and why we need to get back to what this country was originally supposed to stand for!

    • Thanks for the heads up, Sonja. I’ve now made three attempts to include the paragraphs WordPress insists on deleting and to delete the paragraph it insists on including. I think I finally succeeded. Sigh.

      And thank you for the kind words about the post itself.

    • TaxPaying American Voter

      And that has absolutely nothing to with religion.

  • JE Dear

    One of the worst NYT columns ever, even by Bruni standards. Problems begin in the third paragraph. Clearly not ALL of Cruz’s classmates abhorred him. He was deeply respected by many of the college-age cohort across the nation who faced him in verbal combat on the debate stage. Some who saw him regularly still talk about him with something approaching awe. Anyone who has experienced being an outlier (ie. a conservative on a hotly liberal Ivy campus) appreciates how strong you have to be in order not to dilute your own core beliefs and to keep growing and expanding your knowledge base. The Times does a disservice to all its readers when it allows such one-sided, slipshod opinions to be based on scanty and selective reportage.

    • JE Dear: You’re right that Bruni is a hack. It would have been easy to discount the article entirely but for two things: (1) He has a huge bully pulpit at the New York Times; and (2) because he’s not an original thinker, he usefully repeated all the Leftist shibboleths, which made him kind of a one-stop-rebuttal place as far as my friend and I were concerned.

      • TaxPaying American Voter

        But you will watch fox and friends for facts……hilarious.

    • TaxPaying American Voter

      It’s hard to debate a lunatic.

      • SLAMDUNK4570

        How much do you get paid to troll?

        • TaxPaying American Voter

          And you are my example. Facts bother the fu#k out of folks that just have opinion to fall back on. Try that on your uneducated repuke websites, and ANYTHING you imagine becomes truth. You can’t change facts to fit your racism.

          • SLAMDUNK4570

            You posted facts? All I saw was you calling names like a child.

    • PoqVaUSA

      I think Ted Cruz is taking it as ‘street cred’ and an endorsement that the NY Times is coming after him. They wouldn’t bother to do so unless he had them worried!

    • TaxPaying American Voter

      The only “awe” inspiring moment was the realization that a protozoa could spew such bullsh#t and have so many bible thumping racist sheep believe it. These comments clearly show the dumbing down of southern states in it’s full glory.

  • texasjo

    That he failed at poker proves even more how honest he is. He can’t bluff, that’s for sure. Would you vote the world’s poker champ for President? Ha…

    • I bet, texasjo, that he’s learned a bit about bluffing and poker over the years. But I’m pretty sure his sense of honor hasn’t changed.

  • PVG

    Bravo. Well done!

  • BadWhisky

    I voted for Cruz twice when he ran for the Senate, I will vote for him again gladly.

    • That’s good news to me, BadWhisky. Seeing as how I live in California, which is now an open primary state, my vote is meaningless. But every non-Californian who votes for Cruz matters.

    • TaxPaying American Voter

      Ft. Worth is chock full of uneducated theocrats. Wendy Davis was the only hope for Texass. Please seceed.

      • BadWhisky

        Wendy Davis was a user and abuser that thought she saw and opportunity to make a name for herself. She filibustered to stop a law which require abortion clinics to maintain a standard of cleanliness equal to other medical establishments and requires the doctors of such establishments to have admitting privileges to a hospital close to the clinic. She did this in the name of women’s health which she care about as much for as the husband that paid her way through college and the kids she abandoned with him one of which wasn’t even his child. So this woman is your folk hero?

  • the_bat

    Leaning more and more to Ted Cruz, this argument may well be the one that closes the deal. Historical perspective is always invaluable in trying to make sense of today’s mishmash.

    And, of course, on a side note, I’m inclined to surmise that Bruni instinctively thinks Republicans should disavow Cruz because this is what the so-called anointed establishment type Republican leadership has done because, in other words, they should behave precisely like “progressives,” i.e., taking the call from “higher up… Well, the hell with that.

    • the_bat: You couldn’t have said anything more calculated to make me happy than that I might have helped you make up your mind.

  • Charles Martel

    If Obama could take out an insurance policy by having Biden the Buffoon join him on the ticket, Cruz could return the favor by having Trump as his running mate. That would insure Cruz’s safety for the next eight years.

  • Jayson Cooke

    There was a poll taken where the Democrats say they “fear” Marco Rubio most vs Hilliary. Jeb Bush was as the #2 most feared Vs. Hillary! Really?? This put up some flags for me immediately…also the numbers for Trump was about 10% and Cruz was at 0% feared going against Hilary.
    If you know anything about phycology or about polls in general you can see that the numbers actually indicate the OPPOSITE, because they (the DEMS taking the poll) are NOT STUPID when answering. They understand the candidate closest to Hillary IS Rubio as far as ESTABLISHMENT politics. Jeb is completely lost in debates and is as ESTABLISHMENT as they come. So when you see 0% for Cruz, you either know they are answering tactically or they are so isolated in their political view that they never even looked at any Cruz strategy or position. Probably it’s a bit of both….Bottom line is they ESTABLISHMENT IS AFRAID of Cruz because he is smarter, more principled and actually more anti-establishment than Trump will ever be.
    Don’t call me a Trump hater. I actually like what the guy is doing and I think he is risking a vast amount of his own wealth and future reputation. But, I think POTUS is just the ultimate feather in his cap of accomplishments and if we was to actually win…well I don’t think there is that much incentive left for him to really fight that hard to change anything. As for Cruz…the article says it all, he has not, and will not let up until he sees results of the plan to put America back on course and back to honoring the foundation and constitution that made us a great nation.

    • Wolf Howling

      Well said. Agreed.

    • TaxPaying American Voter

      Yeah, like moses wrote the Constitution, and jebus rode dinosaur. LMFAO.

      • LicketySplit

        Reading your posts here confirms you are an obtuse uneducated LIBERAL..thats fine..but you seem to enjoy calling people out for their “Lack” of honesty? CMon…can you do better than that..go ahead ankle biter…bitch back but i just had to mention what a POS you really are..and wonder if you are a woman thats been deserted by a man that never gave you any(imagine that)or a man of the same stripe..have a nice day NATHAN 😉

  • Jimmy D

    Excellent article, and well backstopped. I would point out that the act of “teabagging” is not a specifically sexual one, gay or otherwise. It has generally been performed on an unwitting victim, who had passed out at a party, and for the entertainment of others present. We are ingenious folk, though, and I’ll pass on asking the Goog to enlighten me as to its sexual variations.

  • Storm41

    Great insight into the man, Ted Cruz. Confirms what I have observed since his Senatorial Campaign. IMHO, THE man whose Presidentcy will rescue our Nation.

  • DavidIAmAndrewBreitbartRoss

    The sultan of Bruni had me at “Asked about Cruz at a fund-raiser last spring, John Boehner responded by raising a lone finger — the middle one.”! That says everything I need to know about CRUZ 2016!

  • jguy1957

    It is clear that the Republicans in Congress and Senate are no different then Democrats. Few are doing what they said they would do, and when most do it is designed so they know they will not get the legislation passed. It turns me off and I plan not to vote for my Congressman or Senator at the next election. I do however plan to vote for Cruz.

    • Michael Hiteshew

      It’s nice to see you actually paying attention to how your representatives vote.

    • PoqVaUSA

      I rarely say this, but a protest vote for a principled 3rd party candidate might be better than no vote at all. However, you must realize either way that you will be responsible for a Democrat being elected. If you can live with that on you conscience, then fine.

  • Chrisput

    Best line of the article? “Taking Political advice from the N.Y. Slimes about republicans, is like taking dating advice from Ted Bundy.”

    • TaxPaying American Voter

      At least Ol Teddy Bundy actually did SOMETHING.

  • JaneBlacksmith

    The New York Times is the rougher yet still effective equivalent to Charmin or Cottonelle.

  • TruthWFree

    Great article about Cruz. Long but worth reading. Ted Cruz is a good principled man. Shame about the gambling story as he should have known better, even at 17 inm my opinion, but he did the honorable thing to repay the debt. The article basically says what i have been feeling about Cruz and also about Trump. Trump is my second choice just because he has shaken up the establishment and the Republican establishment needs shaking up.

  • Epiminondas

    Great piece. No wonder the establishment hate him. He threatens their New World Order.

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations — Obama’s Strategy Edition |

  • Teshuvah

    The Bible shows in the passage below that the Wicked, in this case Leftists, Democrats, Communists and Muslims, hate true Christians and consider them the “smell of death.” They are merely projecting their own hatred when they call Conservatives “hateful” or “phobic.” Often the Wicked will hate true Christians on sight, without the Christian having said anything. Because Ted Cruz is a true Christian, they hate him.

    2Cor 2:15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
    16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Obama’s Strategy Edition – Grumpy Opinions()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Obama’s Strategy Edition | Viewpoints of a Sagitarrian()

  • Chip01

    What idea from Ted Cruz has accomplished a positive for Americans?
    I know he rejects just about anything and everything that his father tells him that his religion should reject (like helping people)…

    But if we are going to elect him, what can he point to as positive accomplishments he has had a direct influence.

    • Teshuvah

      >>>What idea from Ted Cruz has accomplished a positive for
      Americans? I know he rejects just about anything and everything that
      his father tells him that his religion…

      is no Biblical imperative to take in invading terrorists (such as the
      two in San Bernardino) who intend to murder you. ISIS has declared they
      will use immigration to send terrorists and have done that in Europe.
      Read this daily:

      You should read an
      article before commenting. In many cases Ted Cruz is the ONLY
      Republican who has stood for some traditional conservative issues.

      a former litigator himself, Mr. Cruz won numerous landmark
      federal/Supreme Court cases on some of today’s most important
      constitutional issues, such as national sovereignty, the Second
      Amendment and religious liberty. No other candidate can say that.”

      * He is willing to take on the Washington establishment,

      filibustered against Obamacare which BTW exempts Muslims from the
      government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax
      for being uninsured (at page 107), making it Jizyah, a Muslim tax on everyone else,

      * against the Iran deal,

      * against bringing in Syrians,

      * he is the only candidate endorsed by Gun Owners of America, (Obama is arming ISIS and trying to disarm everyone else),

      * talks about carpet-bombing ISIS into oblivion;

      * talks about abolishing the IRS, the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, and HUD,

      * he has unshakable, conservative moral convictions,

      * he is fighter.

      • Chip01

        So, in a Ted Cruz “America”… There is no room for those who are not mirrors of Teds evangelical fathers beliefs.

        You gave a great list, but not one mention of an accomplishment as a senator.

        • Teshuvah

          He did all of the things I listed “as a senator.” You appear to be inoculated against truth and to have subscribed to a leftist agenda. Hillary should appreciate your vote.

          • Chip01

            Umm all your line items with “*” are not accomplishments… What is the accomplishment from “he is a fighter”..? That’s sort of like saying “he likes green beans”. Great. But that’s not an accomplishment.

            As a Senator, Cruz introduced one bill that was passed and then signed into law… One. (This is an example of an accomplishment, btw) In April 2014, Cruz introduced legislation to prevent representatives to the United Nations who are believed to be spies or terrorists from entering the country. I’m not sure how that helps the middle class of America.. But it’s something.

            Cruz said “As a freshman senator, I had more legislation pass the Senate then all but a handful of Republicans.” How many you might ask? Two pieces of legislation… That’s how many (both a sad commentary on our government, and Mr Cruz)

            We need politicians who are willing to work together. Or we need to have a talk about how we want to live in a country where we all must comply to one religion/ ideology. There appears to be no grey junder a Cruz “America”

          • Teshuvah

            “Willing to work together” and “grey” amount to compromising, the
            of great politicians in the past. Thank God that Ted Cruz shares their
            great character trait of being Uncompromising with evil.

            The doctrines of Consensus,
            Ecumenism, Pluralism, Ceasefire, Disarmament, Centrism,
            Flatteries, Tolerance, Multiculturalism, Diversity,
            Compromise, Unity,
            Cooperation, Bridge Building, “Peace and Security” used by the MSM are all
            propaganda tools of the
            enemy used to defeat Israel, America and the West. That
            enemy is Satan
            manifested as Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Globalism,
            New World
            Order, the Antichrist and false religion in any form,

            Jesus said, Re 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

            16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

          • Chip01

            Evil? I’m sorry, but having a different opinion does not make one evil.

            Careful with that line of thought… Because I’m 100% certain you don’t share every opinion the Ted Cruz, and you might find you are left eith either compromising your own beliefs, or being labeled as “evil”

            I hope and pray I don’t like in an America that will start to label opinions as “evil”

          • Teshuvah

            You already live in an America that does that. Obama/Clinton will make homosexuality and Islam the only allowable lifestyles and condemn all others as evil. It is a U.N. law and a $20,000 fine. Christians should be the least of your worries.

            Time is up on these two Islamic timelines now.

            Islamic Timelines Fueling Jihad

          • Chip01

            If someone is not a homosexual – then they won’t become a homosexual. And if They are a homosexual, then that’s fine. There is nothing wrong with being a hetero or homosexual.

            (Ever wonder why Americans get all bent out of shape over sexuality and who loves who … But seem oblivious to the violence, hunger, pain in our daily lives?)

            But.. Playing along with your notion… (Not agreeing, just playing)… If you feel this way about Obama/Islam…, then you can surely see that electing Cruz will make Evangelical beliefs the only allowable lifestyle and condem all others…

            Or are you ok with that – because you already prescribe to Cruz’s beliefs? Which, then “hello Pot… I’m kettle”

          • Teshuvah

            We aren’t agreeing, you aren’t going to get it and I don’t have time to play.

          • Chip01

            people don’t have to agree with you… Just an FYI.


  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Obama’s Strategy Edition |

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results — 12/11/15 |

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results | Viewpoints of a Sagitarrian()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results |

  • Pingback: Watchers of Weasels Council Results –– 12-11-15 – Grumpy Opinions()

  • John L. Battey

    It must be very hard for Ted’s father, Pastor Raphael Cruz, to endure the shame of a son who will stand silently by while his hired minions, Austin Ruse and Steve Deace, publish lying character assassination articles about an honest, life-long evangelical Christian to whom Ted pretended friendship. I can only imagine the agony of a man of God having such a publicly duplicitous, power greedy, smiling serpent for a son. Pastor Raphael Cruz has my heart-felt sympathy and my prayers.

  • snoocks2

    Excellent and certainly on point!