Ted Cruz is not wrong

 This is truth:

this is the problem https://t.co/F4po5PnCO2

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 5, 2023

What the hell is going on with Marco Rubio?

First Marco Rubio slam dunks on China apologists.  Then he blasts Big Tech.  Now he's saying that the shift in Hispanic voters towards the GOP is permanent as long as they continue on in president Trump's direction.

The man is on fire, nailing one topic after another. Why now?  He's very likely positioning himself for a 2024 run for president (as is Ted Cruz, in a different method).  I like this version of Marco Rubio.  The question is; is this the real Rubio now, or just a façade intended to attract conservative voters?

My skepticism is strong, but I am willing to continue listening.

Border security tour, unfiltered. Starring Ted Cruz

 Ted Cruz and others reveal that change in policies from Trump era have created a humanitarian disaster.

Twitter and Facebook are acting in an evil manner right now

 Evil Big Tech:

2020 concerns

Ted Cruz talks about the Democrats' ferocity going into 2020.  While president Trump is on a good track for re-election in 2020, it is important conservatives not be complacent because the left is going to fight hard - for the presidency, for  congress, for the senate and for state races,  The 2020 election is as much a watershed election as 2012 was supposed to be and failed.  Failure is not impossible in 2020 but success is even more important than it was in 2016.

It begins: Ted Cruz grills Google Exec

Based on the Project Veritas undercover report (interestingly, removed by YouTube, which is owned by Google) exposing Google bias, Ted Cruz asks some pointed questions and gets some boiler plate answers from Google:

This will not be the end of this - Google will be broken up no doubt.  And that is as it should be.  But here's my concern; isn't it odd that the week before a Commerce Committee meeting this video comes out, and now we have conservatives demanding Google be broken up or regulated differently (or perhaps more).

Look, I've called for Google to be broken up myself.  They clearly exhibit the bias of all of Silicon Valley as very liberal to the point of censoring any speech with which they do not agree.  They are not vehicles for free speech.  But let's be clear, this is a dangerous road.  This could lead not to, or only to Google's break-up as if it were Standard Oil.  This could lead to Google, or it's component parts, beholden to new, more onerous government regulation.  

Do we really want to trust how to deal with Google to the government?  Even if we have no choice, they could impose things on Google or it's successors that are anti-competitive and America could lose yet another area in which they currently possess a technological advantage.

There will be unintended consequences no matter what happens.  But maybe the weakened American tech advantage is worth the cost, if it means that unelected tech barons are not allowed free rein over the American political landscape.  Additionally allowing monopolies is typically not good for consumers or business, and that is doubly so when the tech giants control the means of communication. But that does not inform how to solve the problem. The point is that there are no simple paths to solving this.  Therefore it behooves us not to rush headlong down the path to solving it.  There are a number of potential pitfalls, many of which we may not yet have even considered.

Google should be broken up, but it should be done with prudence. As for regulation, even more prudence is required.

Why Ted Cruz is going to beat Beto O'Rourke

A few days ago statistical analytics site  Five Thirty Eight published an article explaining why they though Texas senate challenger to incumbent Ted Cruz had a real shot at winning the upcoming midterm election. This is not by some marginal contributor but rather head honcho Nate Silver. So it must carry some wight, right?  After all, Silver had a pretty great track record up until 2016, when it turned to just so-so.  Maybe 2016 was the anomaly.  We won't know until November.

But here's why I see Silver being wrong.  It's not because it's Texas which is definitely a conservative state.  It's because when you look at the Real Clear Politics average of polls, and you filter out the registered voters and look only at the likely voter polls through the summer and up to today, there is a clear trend and significant towards Cruz.  

This is the same approach I took in 2016 indicating that the polling lead for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump was at a minimum flawed.

Not only is there a consistency of Cruz leads month over month (Note - there were no Likely Voter polls taken in August) but in addition, the total of those surveyed has increased month over month, thereby increasing the certitude of the results month over month. For example May had 575 people surveyed vs September having 1326 surveyed.

That is a consistent lead outside of the margin of error.  That is without looking at the sampling review which often include oversampling of Democrats.

I'm confident in saying that barring any changes, Ted Cruz is on his way to a comfortable re-election.

Ted Cruz finally gets around to endorsing Donald Trump

Ho hum, that's the headline here.

During the primaries I was rooting for Cruz to emerge as the candidate.  I get why Trump won, and win or lose the general election, there's concrete value in the shake-up it has caused within the Republican establishment.  Nevertheless, Ted Cruz didn't seem to get it.  I understand why, there was a lot of vitriol during the primary campaign.  So during the Republican national convention, he deliberately refused to endorse Donald Trump, despite taking an oath to support the eventual nominee prior to Trump winning the nomination.

Make no mistake, that had an effect on Trump, fuelling the #NeverTrump crowd's flickering flame.  But that flame itself eventually dwindled.  Ted Cruz did not endorse Trump during his August polling swoon either, when it might have mattered more.  Ted Cruz finally gets around this week to endorsing Donald Trump after Trump has surged to near parity with Clinton.

Cruz makes a solid case as to why he's endorsing Trump, and he's outwardly at least, doing it for the right reasons.  And it's good that he has stepped up and done the right thing rather than continuing to be petulant.  But....Ho hum. The endorsement is a day late and a dollar short as the saying goes.

I say that because at this point, that endorsement no longer matters. Ted Cruz supporters have either exited the Cruz bus, or decided to not vote for Trump already.  The splash was the non-endorsement. Endorsing now has gotten little press coverage on the left or the right - the former because it doesn't help Hillary and the latter because they've already moved on to deciding for themselves either way. There's no splash. Maybe there would have been if Cruz had emerged from Trump's plane and spoken on Trump's behalf at a rally.  Then it might have really gotten some attention.  Not on Facebook though.

So who does this endorsement actually help? Ted Cruz.  If Trump wins and a few states are squeakers Cruz can point out to Trump that his endorsement may have made that marginal difference that got him elected.  And maybe he can get a plum appointment from Trump to a cabinet post or even as a Supreme Court Justice (a role he would be well qualified to serve).  Additionally, this can serve Cruz to help him repair his reputation from his seemingly jilted non-endorsement during the GOP convention.  Two reasons for Cruz to endorse Trump that have little to do with Trump.  

In fact, Cruz' endorsement of Trump rings more of a disavowal of Hillary Clinton than as an endorsement of Trump. If it had been the latter, and if he had truly wished to fully own his own shortcoming, and move past them, there would have been an apology attached to the endorsement. There wasn't.

Cruz could have actually made a bigger splash had he waited until after the debate, especially if Trump had a bad night.  And maybe that's his calculus - maybe he figures Trump will exceed expectations, do well and not need another endorsement and Cruz' own endorsement at that point would have zero value. It would be perceived as hopping on the bandwagon.  That's a risk.  But it's a risk for Ted Cruz, not for the good of the party. The risk worth taking for the good of the party and of the country, would have been to wait, and risk having his endorsement not matter, but be available to knock some of the wind out of Hillary's sails should Trump have not fared well during Monday's debate.

Don't get me wrong, I like most of Ted Cruz' policy positions. If he were to run again I would consider supporting him (although I'm not 100% certain he would be my choice).  But to me, his endorsement of Trump, because of the under-the-radar timing of it make it a non-event in my eyes.

Disloyal Cruz

I'm a big fan of Ted Cruz's political views.  Or more accurately his views on issues - the economy, the Constitution, national security - that sort of thing.  Ted Cruz last night in his speech had the opportunity to be magnanimous, to be a larger than life politician by not holding his tongue and saying that he endorses Trump because the country is more important than his personal issues with Trump.

That would have been a WOW moment and Ted Cruz would have sent himself up prominently for future elections.  

Instead, in his speech and his breakfast Q&A with delegates this morning he came across as petty and small, and frankly disloyal.  And I do no mean disloyal to Trump or disloyal to the GOP, I mean disloyal to America.  Anything other than a full endorsement of Trump is fodder for a Hillary Clinton victory.

I supported Ted Cruz, in this moment I cannot.  America cannot survive 4 years of Hillary Clinton after 8 years of Obama. I think Ted Cruz has failed on two fronts - he's failed his country and he's failed his own political future.

New York Primary Winners and Losers

It should not come as a surprise that both Trump and Clinton won their 'home' state.  What's a bit surprising are the margins of victory.  Trump crushed Kasich and Cruz garnering ~60% of the vote so far.  Cruz did himself no favors in New York by using the phrase 'New York values' earlier in the cycle.  But Cruz wasn't expecting to win in the Empire State.  Still, 60% has to be a vindication for Trump who has seen his momentum slow in the last few weeks.

Hillary beat Bernie by roughly 58% to 42%.  That's a stronger than expected showing for Sanders and he'll have managed minimize her expected delegate dominance in her 'home' state.  It ensures an even more drawn out primary on the Democratic side.

I'm sure the fallout from New York will be interesting.  I've been slow on posting this month as I've been busier than usual with a myriad of things, but I'm sure there'll be some hot sound bites coming out of the latest contest so I'll have to find time to comment.

Ted Cruz birtherism is not flying

Donald Trump may be a lot of things, but one thing he most certainly is, is a birther.  After the Obama birth certificate died down, well over a year later, Trump jumped on the bandwagon and claimed he was the one who finally put the issue to rest, that should have been put to rest long before.  It kinda had - nobody was talking about it at that point except Trump.

I guess he could try to claim the same for illegal immigration, although that never really went away.

But more recently he decided to try the same tactic on Ted Cruz. Except it's fizzling fast;

Washington (CNN) A New York judge has dismissed a petition that claimed Ted Cruz was not eligible to run for President of the United States because he is not a "natural born citizen."

Judge David A. Weinstein's ruling was procedural, stating that the petitioners, Barry Korman and William Gallo, failed to submit timely objections, which stripped the court of jurisdiction over the petition. His ruling did not consider the actual merits of whether Cruz, who was born in Canada, qualified as a natural-born citizen in this year's presidential election.

Ultimately this is a sideshow and will go nowhere.  As the article points out, the horse is out of the barn. And in reality, the case is baseless. Trump knows it's pointless, just as he did with Obama but it's a tactic and he's using them all.

If Cruz does well today...

If Ted Cruz does well today in closed contest state primaries then this is a new race.

Amnesty vs Trump (and Cruz)

GOP Debate #4, Via PJ Media:

Lot's to love here

And Ted Cruz is 100% right on the debate questions:


What's not to love about that?

The CNN Republican Debate

A lot has already been said and analyzed concerning last nights Republican candidates' debate on CNN.  All I can add is my impression of who did well and who didn't.

I think pretty much everyone did a good job of representing themselves - even CNN did a good job, probably because it was Jake Tapper running things. 

I was most impressed with Fiorina, Carson, Rubio and Kasich (at least his list of accomplishments impressed), but others all represented themselves fairly well.  Trump did better than I expected, as did Bush.  Rand Paul defined his positions well and he will certainly appeal to a segment of Republican voters. He was of course well spoken and reasoned, but I find myself less inclined to consider supporting him than before.  Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee both did well but while the former came across as almost too polished, Huckabee, who would not be in my top 5 choices, came across in a connected, approachable way.

This is still early on, and things will change, but it will be interesting to see how this changes the polling.

Suggested Reading on gay marriage reactions.

Charles C.W. Cooke responds to the preposterous notion that churches that will not perform gay marriage have their tax exempt status revoked.  It's ironic that those who would do anything possible to separate church and state to keep religion out of politics are evidently gung ho to have the state invade the sanctity of the church.  Hypocrisy maybe?

Ted Cruz on the other hand has gone the Bobby Jindal route and suggested that if you don't like the law you can ignore it. Dumb, dumb, dumb. That's the kind of thinking that leads to criminal activity - drugs, murder, theft, illegal immigration. It also seems like quite the double standard - obey these laws that we like, ignore these that we detest. I'll say it again, dumb - both logically and politically.

Stephen Crowder ruminates - on gay marriage, what's up with Hypocrite Hillary?

Rand Paul separates not just gay marriage but all marriage from government entirely. Quite well. He's being consistent  with his own principles.  It's not enough to sway me to support his candidacy, but it is exceptionally well put and convincing.

Finally, The Federalist contains reactions from numerous people, and is worth reading.

GOP Candidate Info - Ted Cruz Edition

Ted Cruz, on Ted Cruz and other things:

Ted Cruz's pointless triumph

A few days ago I wrote that Ted Cruz, whom I agree with 100% on substance (so far), was waging the war on Obamacare the wrong way. John Podhoretz at the NY Post agrees.

 

(emphasis added)

Every single one of those Cruz includes in the “surrender caucus” opposes ObamaCare and voted against it. The writers and talkers he includes in the “surrender caucus” have written or spoken tens of thousands of words against it and are as committed to stopping its harmful effects as Cruz is.

They simply don’t see the value in this game of brinksmanship; in fact, they — we — see that it might be harmful to the cause of stopping ObamaCare. This disagreement is over tactics, not core convictions.

This is enraging to Cruz and his followers. They want confrontation, even if the confrontation is purposeless at this moment — and doesn’t even involve ObamaCare.

They confuse style with substance. Cruz and others think that standing your ground and fighting at every turn is actually more moral than working on a long-term strategy to get rid of ObamaCare.

That long-term strategy involves winning elections in 2014 and 2016. A budget fight in which the Right is blamed for shutting down the government will be harmful to these crucial goals.

 Well put. The issue some conservatives have with going nuclear is all about the tactics - it won't work in the short term and will make matters worse in the long term.  What defeats Obamacare is winning Congress, Senate and White House.  Alienating the public does not achieve that.

 

Podhoretz raises another question - if you are against the tactics, why are you suddenly declared an enemy of conservatism and those who do support such tactics?  There's still a common goal - getting rid of the bloat that Democrats have thrust and continue to thrust upon the government.

Don't get the tactics wrong on fighting Obamacare!

I'm a fan of Senator Ted Cruz.  He legitimately gets the problems with Obamacare (among other things) and he genuinely seems to want to do something about it.  He's taking bold steps that others in the GOP seem to be shying away from doing (in fact, some in the GOP seem ready to torpedo Cruz at any opportunity).   The problem in this case is that those bold steps might not be the right steps to take.