Yes, this is about the Cruz filibuster.
"We don't have the votes!"
Yes, you do. You're not willing to use them, for fear of an adverse reaction from the Main Stream Media, which already hate you and will never feel any other way.
"The only solution is an electoral takeover of the Senate!"
If you believe that -- and it might be so -- please tell us all: How does Senator Cruz's drive to defund Obamacare do anything but improve the prospects for it?
"He's burnishing his image for a presidential run!"
Supposing that to be the case: So what? Would you prefer a spineless marshmallow like Lindsey Graham for your presidential front-runner? Or perhaps you were hoping to renominate John McCain? Why not, after all? He'll only be 80 in November 2016, and no more self-absorbed than he is today...probably.
"But...but...but...the public will blame us for shutting down the government!"
The public would praise you for shutting down the government to abort this monstrosity. Or do you have access to a poll more recent and more reliable than the latest ones from Gallup, Rasmussen, et alii?
The Establishmentarians can't make this case to save their lives. That stands to reason, of course: their psyches are dominated by a vast and irrational fear of the New York Times. Staying on its not-quite-so-bad side, and putting down the Upstart from Texas who's making them all look like Gumby after an hour in a hot tub, seem to be all that matters to them.
By the standards of the GOP Establishment, Ted Cruz is excessively flamboyant. (Granted that they don't like Rand Paul or Mike Lee much better.) He's a "newcomer," with "no sense for his place," who "doesn't appreciate how things work around here." Great God in heaven, to hear some of them talk, you'd think they were peers in the House of Lords.
But Ted Cruz is only doing what he promised the people of Texas he would do, should they raise him to the United States Senate. They did, and he's following through.
Yes, Cruz is flamboyant. He takes every opportunity to press his case. He never shies back from a stand because others disapprove, including others in his party. He's happy to get the attention of a crowd or the media. Whether the crowd is three or three thousand, whether the media is a local shopping circular or the Washington Post, makes no difference to him. He exploits every such opportunity with a passion that will soon be trademarked under his name.
Yet the Establishmentarians dislike him intensely and passionately want to see him sit down and shut up. If they could find a way to remove him by force or fraud, they would use it without delay. But why?
It's fairly simple. Cruz is showing them up. He's behaving like a man with principles, a man who stands by his given word. He's displaying the courage of his convictions. He's showing the nation how a genuine Republican should use the prestige and power of a Senatorial seat. The go-along-to-get-along types, who've been secure in their assumption that their constituents wouldn't vote them out as long as they could credibly claim that "the other side is worse," are pissed because he's making them look like what they are: political prostitutes devoid of sincere convictions, whose party platform is a sham and whose promises are worthless.
Ted Cruz is demonstrating how a public official who really loves America behaves.
The Establishmentarians don't merely dislike Cruz. They fear what he stands for and what he's bidding to become: a standard to which the electorate might hold all Republicans in federal office, regardless of their seniority.
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity." Say what, Mr. Yeats? Just now, it seems to be the other way around.
I'm no partisan. Been there, done that, and the T-shirt has a lot of ragged holes in it. I know what I believe, and what I value. That's enough. I judge an aspirant to office by that standard, rather than according to the letter in parenthesis after his name.
I'm willing to argue for my positions, and I'm willing to confront the evidence and reasoning of my opponents. Except for fundamental moral and ethical principles, my mind can be changed. But on one thing I'm an absolutist: I will not be fooled twice. A politician who says one thing and does another will never receive another vote from me.
So far, Ted Cruz is exactly what I want to see in a federal official. I salute him. I pray for his success in his current endeavor. Should he decide to run for the presidency, he'll have my support...always assuming he doesn't acquire the "flexibility" the GOP's "leadership" appears to value above conviction and courage.
The question that remains is whether he has staying power. Will he continue to fight the good fight even when the odds are seriously adverse? Will he face down his detractors in the media without flinching? Will he maintain his stances even in the face of rejection by the Establishmentarians and the national Republican Party? Or will his time in the Senate wear him down, render him biddable?
Unfortunately, many flamboyant men lack endurance. Yet endurance is the one quality most necessary to a Constitutionalist determined to see the Constitution obeyed by the government that owes its existence to it. There are too few of them, and the outcries against them are too loud and prolonged for most of them to bear.
Republicans have disappointed me far too often. Ted Cruz has me hoping. I'm not looking forward to being disappointed again.
We shall see.
2 comments:
As for Sen Cruz being a "newcomer" with no sense of "his place," I say "thfffppppt!" The whole notion of seniority in either the senate or the house is a bizarre concept to begin with. The congress is supposed to represent the people (or more exactly, the people or their state's legislature, but that's another issue), regardless of how long a particular member has been sitting in the seat.
The idea of any congress-critter having "seniority" over a "new comer" demonstrates their belief that the person occupying a seat is what is important, NOT the people (or state) they represent. The hubris exhibited by these clowns is appalling. How dare they think that the representation of their constituents is more important than another simply because they've been occupying that position longer than others. Maybe it's just the cumulative effects of exposure to the toxic environment of DC...
Francis, your comment about Cruz having staying power is answered afaiac. I live on the west coast and started watching cspan coverage of his oratory at 5:30. I fell asleep at 1:00... when I woke up he was still there looking as fresh as a daisy.
This guy is the real deal. He needs to increase his security detail I think. That is the only way the statists can stop him.
Post a Comment