Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly.
He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
Also, too, the story behind that link has a little factual nugget in its very first paragraph:
“Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) made his speech announcing that he would run for the presidency without the assistance of a teleprompter, his spokesman said Monday.”
“…his spokesman said…”. But sure, headline writer, assert a claim as fact in your headline. We saw how well that journamalism worked when it helped get us to invade Iraq twice!!!
I despise the vast majority of our millionaire-humping Washington press corps.
All he said was that wanted to earn your vote. Why does he need a teleprompter for that?
Besides, teleprompters are used by REAL politicians because every single word is parsed out in infinite detail by political enemies. In HRC’s case, her enemies don’t have to … her allies do it for them.
Cruz doesn’t give a flying fuck what anybody says about his words.
His internet team didn’t bother with notes either: somebody (not a friend) snatched up TedCruz.com and TedCruzforAmerica.com before they got around to this. Could he still go with CalgaryCruz.com? Or RafaelCruzforAmerica?
It’s possible that he has good rote memory skills. Could explain why he was viewed as a “big brain” in college and law school.
“The willingness to say all those crazy things is a rare, rare characteristic in this town, and you know what? It’s every bit as true now as it was then. We need a hundred more like Jesse Helms in the U.S. Senate,” Cruz said.
Echoes — as correctly noted at ThinkProgress — of Trent Lott in 2002:
“I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”
Even in those seeming very dark days for liberals/Democrats in 2002, Lott was busted for his comment by high profile Republicans.
It shows the birthplace of him and his parents. It’s non-responsive as to the citizenship status of his parents at the time of his birth. Daddy Cruz has said that at some point he became a naturalized Canadian citizen and in 2006 a naturalized US citizen. Thus, Teddy is dependent on his mother’s US citizenship to establish that he’s “natural born.” Not that she followed the law at that time to register him as a US citizen. But the “rule of law” can be broken for the right sorts of people.
Had the same basic facts existed for Obama (foreign citizen father married to US citizen mother, born in Canada and not registered with USG), highly doubt that he would have gotten through the Democratic primaries against Clinton. But maybe all the birther nonsense was not to discredit Obama but to exhaust the US public attention wrt this issue and give Cruz smooth sailing. That would have been dastardly clever plot.
One of the interesting characteristics of it was how easily and quickly the claims about Obama’s eligibility would morph depending on the facts presented at the time. Most claims started with the idea that Obama was born elsewhere and had his birth announcements planted in both Honolulu newspapers at the time. But as the evidence against that became so extreme that even some birthers started to doubt (and that is an amazing accomplishment right there) the arguments morphed to creative interpretations of the law – “under English law, which was the source of the phrase in the Constitution, the father is the source of citizenship” – “as his father was Kenyan his citizenship was government by the 1948 British law, not US law” – “both parents must be citizens for a child to be a natural born citizen”, etc.
Of course, those of us who have dealt with the right wing for years recognize those kind of common logical fallacies. These are a group of people who were motivated by an extreme, gut-level hatred to prove something that could not be proven – as they are with the Bell Curve and other topics like climate change and supply-side economics.
In contrast, it’s extremely clear that Dick Cheney was not eligible constitutionally to run as VP because he and his running mate were from the same state, Texas, and his last minute (almost literally) changing of his state residency to Wyoming after this fact was pointed out was too late to meet the letter or spirit of the law. However, in that case the courts applied a long-standing, if not grounded in actual law, principle to not muddle in politics (unless 5 of 9 SCOTUS members have the opportunity to pick the President). What’s interesting about the Cheney example is how the left wing just dropped it. Very telling contrast in how the different wings operate and think.
What’s interesting about the Cheney example is how the left wing just dropped it. Very telling contrast in how the different wings operate and think.
More likely a difference in the two audiences. Rigid minds/mental processes are slow to tire of hearing the same thing again and again. The familiar feeds their souls. Flexible/liberal minds are quick to say “got it already” and move on when further repetition obviously won’t be productive.
But maybe all the birther nonsense was not to discredit Obama but to exhaust the US public attention wrt this issue and give Cruz smooth sailing. That would have been dastardly clever plot.
Would have been, but of course it wasn’t. We rightly give credit to the right wing for the long-term planning in terms of building the church network and slowly embedding right wing talking points into mainstream discourse, but for specific planning like this, it doesn’t happen any more.
The main thing is that they know they can just change the topic and the press will follow along dutifully. Thus, using reconciliation to pass ACA was the WORST THING EVER and ENTIRELY UNPRECEDENTED except for the 100x the GOP used it in the 16 years prior.
In this case in 2003 the GOP was all aflutter about Schwartengroper and tried to get an amendment passed to get rid of the natural born citizen requirement altogether. Didn’t take off, but they are entirely flexible like that. And the funny thing is that if that had succeed they STILL would have found some way to argue that Obama wasn’t legitimate based on something or other and most of them would still be frothing about it today.
I honestly don’t know who initiated the “not natural born” issue wrt to Obama. Someone was snooping around on this in 2007. Could have been team Clinton. Then the right picked up on it. All sort of tamped down when it wasn’t clear that McCain could claim “natural born” status.
But why was it reprised in 2009 and wouldn’t go away? Cui bono?
Surely coincidental that team Cruz was beginning to make a political move. And they really, really had no idea that Cruz was a Canadian citizen. Cruz is just lucky that way.
I saw his little speech — well some of it anyway. He is obviously practiced at this. But his pauses and gestures seemed phony nonetheless. Even so it seems to sell.
Okay — from the snippet which is far more than I wanted to view — my two cents.
First, the audience response was far less raucous than I would have expected. These were “his people” and his speech hit hard on his “Christian” and up by one’s bootstraps identity. The “born again” parents. Against all odds that his parents and he became college educated. And his wife beginning her business career in childhood by baking and selling bread to apple pickers.
The political parts of his speech was a composite of his stump stuff. Obviously written and rehearsed. He’s a more animated speaker than many politicians. Comfortable being on stage and using a variety of gesticulations. Some of that is natural for extroverts and some of it is learned and practiced. On this measure, better than Obama will ever be because he’s not an extrovert.
Yet, he’s not a charismatic speaker for a few reasons. His voice is unpleasant. Speech training in modulation and inflection (which he’s clearly availed himself of) can only do so much. Worse, he lacks the ability to connect on an emotional level. To his words and the audience. Vocally strident in his moments of attempting to connect emotionally. His facial expressions are limited and veer between neutral and smug. Arrogant would be another adjective. He smiles when he thinks he’s said something clever and when the audience responds as expected to a rehearsed applause line.
Physical attractiveness is a plus for a politician, but not a necessity if one’s persona is pleasant-pleasing-personable. That leaves the impression of “nice guy.” Don’t expect to hear that wrt Cruz. He really isn’t very good at selling snake oil.
Outside of the captive audience at Liberty, I’m guessing very few of his potential constituents will watch the “long form” speech. His thirty-second clip, however, is just the kind of vacant platitudes and cinematic fluff which arouse them. Agree about his voice, though; he sometimes sounds like a plaintive weeny.
This campaign is all about earned media, Republican nomination succession jostling and opportunism.
Let’s not forget Ted has the new Freedom Caucus in Congress to raise hell with during the entire nomination circus; establishment Republicans beware. Cruz’ challenge, it seems to me, is to stand well clear when Bush carpet bombs Walker and then wrest the insurgency from Paul in the aftermath.
He must realise only a “black swan” event could win the general election for him; I wonder if he even wants the nomination or just prefers to deny victory to any Republican in anticipation of another run in 2020.
Early days still. Perry’s legal problems may yet become a problem for him. Christie and Walker may also find themselves in hot legal waters.
Have to wait until 9/30 campaign financial filings to see who is even in the game.
History isn’t kind to those Republicans that seek and lose the nomination to set up another run in four to eight years. Dole, McCain, and Romney came back to win the nomination and then lose the general election. Democrats tend to ignore prior nominee losers when they run a second time or they fall flat before or soon after a second appearance in Iowa (Hart and Edwards).
If I had to guess, I’d say Cruz is all in. Attempting a different slice and dice of the GOP primary electorate than seen in 2012. Do the Paul voters stick with Paul-2.0? Who picks up the Santorum and Romney voters? Newt, Perry, and Bachmann received a total of 28% in Iowa. Where do they go?
on March 23, 2015 at 6:01 pm
I see Perfesser Perry as being squeezed out, much like Santorum, this campaign. There are more impressive (sounding) alternatives out there, fresher faces, newer pols better able to string together the names of the three cabinet departments they want to eliminate and do so without stumbling and without the funny perfesser stage props.
The field already has TX macho covered too, with the first-out-of-the-blocks entry of Theodore Cruz, who does Bully better than the Perfesser.
As for shark-eyes Walker, one can only hope his legal troubles reach Christie proportions, or worse. But if not, I don’t see him overcoming Jebbie, outdebating Theodore, or even besting John Kasich for the Most Impressive Current GOP Governor award.
It too don’t see Perry and Santorum as factors this time around. That’s 35% of the IO 2012 caucus votes. But who were those Santorum voters, approximately 25%? My best guess is they were a mix of fundies and conservative Catholics. Probably more of the former but the latter likely not insignificant.
That Santorum and Perry are unlikely contenders; not so sanguine about Walker’s legal issues, seems to be a something of a signature for him leaving subordinates to face indictments that narrowly miss Hizzoner. Christie missed the starting blocks. Seems it’s down to Jeb, Walker, Cruz, Paul and a reluctant Huckabee.
Walker has jumped out to an early lead in the “anyone but Bush” stakes; to my mind this puts a target on his back for early opposition research and ratf*cking from the Bush camp before momentum sets in. Cruz and Paul can wait their respective turns while vying for “true believer” purity; I’m guessing Cruz would gain most Paul voters in a Cruz vs Jeb finale. Second place will be an interesting contest.
Seems to me all Cruz has to do is weather the storm, outsmart Paul (yeah, I know) and eat more corn-dogs. Still, I’m betting Cruz is banking on the “we never nominate a real conservative” narrative to have a three-strikes clause; a prior Bush general election defeat really opens things up for Cruz in 2020. Especially if Cruz runs a splashy and convincing nomination campaign.
on March 23, 2015 at 11:07 pm
Good point about Cruz having a Plan B for 2020 if he does run well this time. Because I doubt that his Plan B includes a scheme for being tapped this cycle for VP by Jebbie or Shark Eyes. (Almost equally hard to imagine the Jebster accepting #2.)
Theodore is very smart and, possibly, self-aware enough to know he’s a bit overripe and prone to controversy to make for good VP material. Besides, the GOP won’t have to worry about losing TX until probably 2024 (assuming the US is not in full-out civil war by then …)
In addition to Shark Eyes, I think Marco Rubio is a serious VP pick this time, even if he thinks he can win the nom, for obvious FL/EVs reasons. I see him looking rather diminished and inconsequential as the GOP debates unfold, up against the intensity and intellectuality of a Cruz or the senior steadiness of the Jebster or the cutthroat policies of Shark Eyes.
Walker is in the catbird seat for the moment. And I agree that Cruz isn’t running for VP; though politics is full of surprises. I never really thought of Rubio as presidential timber, however his favourite son appeal as VP seems superfluous to former governor Bush.
on March 24, 2015 at 8:43 am
Right — Rubio is more the natural pick for someone like Walker. Even the GOP, despite 2000 and the Junior/Cheeney unconstitutional scheming, couldn’t quite overcome the blatantly obvious fact that Jeb and Rubio are both from FL.
Jeb, the most likely nominee, would consider either a Walker as VP or Kasich from OH. Possible he could go female too, perhaps someone like Gov Martinez of NM.
But if the Bush machine is true to form there won’t be enough of Walker left to pour into a suit and send back to Milwaukee never mind join the ticket.
By way of explanation I’m also guessing most of Christie’s and all of Romney’s recent electoral disappointments were not coincidental or inevitable.
I see Theodore’s challenge in the early and middle rounds to be to soak up some of the RW evangelical support now going to the more well-known Hucklebee. He can’t afford to go into Iowa having his natural constituency heavily diluted by the Huckster. Cruz is however entirely capable of delivering some hard blows and taking over the lion’s share of that vote.
Santorum I see as less likely to catch fire this time — there are more dynamic alternatives like Huck and Ted and so Ricky is probably headed for an early shower. Ben Carson too will be on the sidelines by December.
In the later rounds leading up to IA, Cruz should then pivot to trying to challenge Jebbie, bring him down a notch or two lest the Jebster deliver a devastating one-two Iowa-NH knockout blow to the field.
As for black swan events, for sure, but good pols expect good things to come their way. Meanwhile the successful ones should only be concentrating on the race in front of them.
Has no fire in his belly any more. Not sure he is going to be a factor beyond Iowa; if there.
I reckon Cruz will fight for second place first; Walker and Paul are his first obstacles. Then he can challenge Bush for the conservative “rumble in the jungle” I’m guessing he has planned. We’ll see.
Agreed on your views of his delivery, marie2, and his overweening vocal stridency is emphasized by the words he is saying. I watched the majority of this speech, and holy fuck does this guy deliver the bloodiest red meat for Krazy Konservatives!
Color me skeptical that non-KK voters will be on board with a POTUS candidate who delivers this Repeal Obamacare/Abolish IRS/install fundamentalist Christian governmental theocracy stump speech.
I would sure like to see him flame out. He is smug for sure. But he knows his talking points and delivers them well. But I hope you are correct in saying he is not effective. I just suppose that his audience is not you or me but the Tea Party and far right. I would still bet he has an audience among those who buy into this sort of thing. So how many want to buy that snake oil? What is unclear to me is does he have enough support of the money interests?
Sustaining interest from the public (demographic irrelevant) requires more than delivering lines an audience approves of. They have to have an emotional experience and/or a desire to see the actor again because of the way such seeing or hearing makes or made them feel. Cruz isn’t attractive enough or well spoken enough to be fascinating to watch or listen to over an extended period of time. Applause lines are like popcorn — easily eaten and quickly forgotten. Women won’t swoon and men won’t easily identify with him or at an emotional level find him admirable or envy him.
Given the choices, he could end up being the teabagger/rightwing choice. But that would also mean that his appeal is limited and he won’t be able to break out of that box.
on March 24, 2015 at 9:01 am
We disagree on Cruz’s speechmaking abilities. Probably better to give the guy his due. I find him a rather outstanding speaker, a natural advocate/preacher. And the GOP masses will be impressed enough with his obvious speaking talent and intelligence as they are fed a steady diet of his red meat politics, the kind of (overdone) meat and starchy potatoes food the Republican base finds nourishing and American.
Alas I don’t think enough big GOP donors and backroom movers and shakers will be crediting so much the speechmaking ability as fretting over the rather fringey political profile this guy cuts. They would view him as Goldwater ’64 (plus 20 IQ points), and so I’m afraid he will be a long shot.
Looked for that — but there’s no cadence and rhythm in him. Al Sharpton (who everyone knows is a bit of a charlatan and he’s no Jesse Jackson either) gives better preacher style speeches. And Sharpton can ad lib his way to that when his prepared remarks don’t get there with an audience. Seriously, take a look at the video of Cruz from last week when he didn’t have a primed-to-be adoring audience. Fell completely flat.
The first thought after watching Palin’s acceptance speech was “Uh oh.” She echoed that thing that Reagan had in his prime, circa 1965. Back then he really was exceptionally good at emotionally stirring a live audience. It’s a hard act to maintain at that performance level, but he didn’t need to. 50%+1 is all he needed and even as a doddering old fool, he could get there. As an adult and leftie, I wasn’t emotionally moved by Palin but could recognize how easily she pulled those strings in others. Unlike Reagan, she doesn’t have the intelligence, hard earned skill set, and discipline to maintain and repeat that performance. IOW a novice that sang all the right notes one time (not that uncommon in the arts and sports).
Cruz wants to do it “his way.” That’s why few of the moneybags will join his crusade. Wouldn’t matter if he had that thing you think he has because there’s easily ten million fundies that can easily throw $100 each into his collection plate this year and next year. Plus on a personal level, Cruz isn’t likeable except among a fringe coterie. Wasn’t in college or law school and isn’t in Congress.
on March 24, 2015 at 11:21 am
Of course the Rev Al has been at this public speaking for 30+ yrs, while young Theodore is still relatively a newbie. But Sharpton appeals to a smaller slice of the electorate compared to the likely 25-30% of people of the hard right/TP/xtian fundie persuasion. You don’t see cadence or rhythm w/Ted, but I do. Sort of a combination of white preacher and slick, glib tv commentator.
In any event, Ted is clearly out to take the TP/fundie vote, as he’s establishing a political beachhead so far to the right, he defines the rightward boundary.
Unfortunately, if done carefully so as not to offend too many TP primary voters, Jebbie can offer a less abrasive style and hard-edged politics which will look most reasonable and attractive to general election voters.
Theodore is likely to scare off party bigwigs and money elites, while the Jebster will look to them like a far less risky general election winner.
Your number for the hard right/TP/xtian fundie voter set is too large. The purest, recent enough numbers that we have to work with from the 2008 GOP Iowa caucuses. Stipulating that IO is 50/50 Democrat/Republican, all fundies are Republicans, IO is a perfect sample of the US population, and the hard right base of the GOP isn’t over or under represented at the caucuses, it’s only 17% (Huck’s 34% of 50%).
In 2012, Santorum may have only held onto half of Huck’s voters. Huck had that nice guy, preacher thing going for him back then which shouldn’t be discounted. Cruz falls short on the preacher man dimension and way short on “nice guy.”
Sarah Palin started off with a couple of pretty good speeches too. Unfortunately (for her) she kept letting stuff escape her mouth. I think we’ll see the same thing happen to Cruz.
Palin, ’08, was more physically attractive. Her folksy bullying was more initially palatable because it was presented as semi-serious. Nothing folksy or charming about Cruz and Walker bullying style.
on March 23, 2015 at 5:33 pm
Right in the Republican comfort zone — they love bullies and bully tough talk, authoritarian types. Going back at least to John Wayne.
And how appropriate that Cruz the authoritarian bully spoke before a forced attendance jugend group at Liberty Valance U.
I want to encourage all my GOP friends out there — both of them — to please give Theodore Cruz a listen and consider voting for him this upcoming primary season. He’s smarter than Mike Hucklebee and makes Jebbie Bush look soft on just about everything.
It makes little girls cry and peels off just enough of the white female vote for them to lose general elections. GWB was the last to get away with it — just barely — and he masked the harder edges with his “compassionate conservative” schtick and joked around with the media folks on his campaign plane. The bully edges of Cruz and Walker are too sharp.
on March 23, 2015 at 7:06 pm
Well Theodore peels off the paint around here. But in Gooper households, he’s fertilizer for their astroturf lawns. And I think “Ted” has smoothed over enough sharp edges from his last earthly incarnation as Tailgunner Joe not only to win the nom but to give Hillary a good run for it in the general.
At least in the Deep South, Arizona, and several of the big empty boxy states out west …
You might want to reconsider referring to Cruz as Theodore because his name is Rafael Edward Cruz. Can’t recall anyone calling Edward M Kennedy “Theodore.”
I was struck again this evening when seeing another replay of Cruz’s announcement how much he looks like Joe McCarthy. Almost could be his grandson or great grandson. Frightening when you think about it.
Perhaps that’s a similarity one of his GOP opponents can capitalize on in a really relevant way.
Not worth the effort because there simply aren’t many people around that have any familiarity with McCarthy visual imagery.
While I agree that superficially Cruz does resemble McCarthy, the similarity ends there. Cruz is emotionally contained. McCarthy was an alcoholic and wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t also consume uppers and downers. Emotionally labile.
on March 24, 2015 at 9:19 am
Similarities: startling physical resemblance. Rather whiny, plaintive voice. Extremist politics. Ability to command attention. Natural political and speechmaking abilities. Quick impressive rise to important national office.
McCarthy likely started out emotionally stable as well, the drinking increasing to uncontrollable dimensions as he got deeper into his charges and accusations and investigations. I assume this because he was befriended by pater Joe Kennedy, who normally would not give a minute of his time to the obvious drunk that Joe became towards the end. Joe also allegedly dated one or two of his daughters, who apparently found him charming.
With the supremely confident, smoothed-out Ted, even more than rough-around-the-edges Joe, you really get the feeling of someone who’s been there/done that in the world of politics. I suspect it’s because he was there, as the Tailgunner.
Why would anyone need prompting assistance for spouting ridiculous wingnut talking points, many of them long ago refuted/discredited here in Reality (e.g., climate denialism)? Which is Cruz’s entire shtick.
Perhaps it’s just too obvious, but no one has noted yet that the purpose of this comment was to dig at Obama, because of the racist wing meme that Obama cannot give a speech without a Teleprompter.
Nevermind the extremely large library of speeches given by Obama successfully without a teleprompter. Nevermind that the racist party’s two favorite presidents, Reagan and (though they aren’t quite ready to admit it yet in public) Dubya both were disasters without a teleprompter. This meme works because it fits their beliefs that blacks are dumb. And yes, it’s just that simple.
There are a few signature beliefs of the racist party that show just how racist they really are, and the teleprompter meme is one of them.
Well, that information is obviously far more important than any public policy positions he might advocate.
Also, too, the story behind that link has a little factual nugget in its very first paragraph:
“Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) made his speech announcing that he would run for the presidency without the assistance of a teleprompter, his spokesman said Monday.”
“…his spokesman said…”. But sure, headline writer, assert a claim as fact in your headline. We saw how well that journamalism worked when it helped get us to invade Iraq twice!!!
I despise the vast majority of our millionaire-humping Washington press corps.
All he said was that wanted to earn your vote. Why does he need a teleprompter for that?
Besides, teleprompters are used by REAL politicians because every single word is parsed out in infinite detail by political enemies. In HRC’s case, her enemies don’t have to … her allies do it for them.
Cruz doesn’t give a flying fuck what anybody says about his words.
His internet team didn’t bother with notes either: somebody (not a friend) snatched up TedCruz.com and TedCruzforAmerica.com before they got around to this. Could he still go with CalgaryCruz.com? Or RafaelCruzforAmerica?
It’s possible that he has good rote memory skills. Could explain why he was viewed as a “big brain” in college and law school.
How about TedCruzAgainstAmerica.com ?
Seems like a real nonevent to me. The Hill must of needed a small filler story for low information voters.
Well, that cinches it for me! Give that man the Presidency!
ThinkProgrss on Cruz 2013
Echoes — as correctly noted at ThinkProgress — of Trent Lott in 2002:
Even in those seeming very dark days for liberals/Democrats in 2002, Lott was busted for his comment by high profile Republicans.
“Even in those seeming very dark days for liberals/Democrats in 2002, Lott was busted for his comment by high profile Republicans. “
Even though they surely agreed with it!
Well, not exactly.
The voices inside Ted’s head made the announcement. The big meatsack just came along for the ride.
So where are the birthers? You know Orly or Donald should have lots of questions. When will they file a law suit for Ted’s real birth certificate?
Cruz released his birth certificate in 2013.
It shows the birthplace of him and his parents. It’s non-responsive as to the citizenship status of his parents at the time of his birth. Daddy Cruz has said that at some point he became a naturalized Canadian citizen and in 2006 a naturalized US citizen. Thus, Teddy is dependent on his mother’s US citizenship to establish that he’s “natural born.” Not that she followed the law at that time to register him as a US citizen. But the “rule of law” can be broken for the right sorts of people.
Had the same basic facts existed for Obama (foreign citizen father married to US citizen mother, born in Canada and not registered with USG), highly doubt that he would have gotten through the Democratic primaries against Clinton. But maybe all the birther nonsense was not to discredit Obama but to exhaust the US public attention wrt this issue and give Cruz smooth sailing. That would have been dastardly clever plot.
I think Cruz is another usurper in the mode of that Kenyan.
The birther movement was something to behold. It was much larger, and much better funded, than the 9/11 truther movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_eligibility_litigation
One of the interesting characteristics of it was how easily and quickly the claims about Obama’s eligibility would morph depending on the facts presented at the time. Most claims started with the idea that Obama was born elsewhere and had his birth announcements planted in both Honolulu newspapers at the time. But as the evidence against that became so extreme that even some birthers started to doubt (and that is an amazing accomplishment right there) the arguments morphed to creative interpretations of the law – “under English law, which was the source of the phrase in the Constitution, the father is the source of citizenship” – “as his father was Kenyan his citizenship was government by the 1948 British law, not US law” – “both parents must be citizens for a child to be a natural born citizen”, etc.
Of course, those of us who have dealt with the right wing for years recognize those kind of common logical fallacies. These are a group of people who were motivated by an extreme, gut-level hatred to prove something that could not be proven – as they are with the Bell Curve and other topics like climate change and supply-side economics.
In contrast, it’s extremely clear that Dick Cheney was not eligible constitutionally to run as VP because he and his running mate were from the same state, Texas, and his last minute (almost literally) changing of his state residency to Wyoming after this fact was pointed out was too late to meet the letter or spirit of the law. However, in that case the courts applied a long-standing, if not grounded in actual law, principle to not muddle in politics (unless 5 of 9 SCOTUS members have the opportunity to pick the President). What’s interesting about the Cheney example is how the left wing just dropped it. Very telling contrast in how the different wings operate and think.
What’s interesting about the Cheney example is how the left wing just dropped it. Very telling contrast in how the different wings operate and think.
More likely a difference in the two audiences. Rigid minds/mental processes are slow to tire of hearing the same thing again and again. The familiar feeds their souls. Flexible/liberal minds are quick to say “got it already” and move on when further repetition obviously won’t be productive.
But maybe all the birther nonsense was not to discredit Obama but to exhaust the US public attention wrt this issue and give Cruz smooth sailing. That would have been dastardly clever plot.
Would have been, but of course it wasn’t. We rightly give credit to the right wing for the long-term planning in terms of building the church network and slowly embedding right wing talking points into mainstream discourse, but for specific planning like this, it doesn’t happen any more.
The main thing is that they know they can just change the topic and the press will follow along dutifully. Thus, using reconciliation to pass ACA was the WORST THING EVER and ENTIRELY UNPRECEDENTED except for the 100x the GOP used it in the 16 years prior.
In this case in 2003 the GOP was all aflutter about Schwartengroper and tried to get an amendment passed to get rid of the natural born citizen requirement altogether. Didn’t take off, but they are entirely flexible like that. And the funny thing is that if that had succeed they STILL would have found some way to argue that Obama wasn’t legitimate based on something or other and most of them would still be frothing about it today.
I honestly don’t know who initiated the “not natural born” issue wrt to Obama. Someone was snooping around on this in 2007. Could have been team Clinton. Then the right picked up on it. All sort of tamped down when it wasn’t clear that McCain could claim “natural born” status.
But why was it reprised in 2009 and wouldn’t go away? Cui bono?
Surely coincidental that team Cruz was beginning to make a political move. And they really, really had no idea that Cruz was a Canadian citizen. Cruz is just lucky that way.
I saw his little speech — well some of it anyway. He is obviously practiced at this. But his pauses and gestures seemed phony nonetheless. Even so it seems to sell.
It was Liberty U. He could sport horns and a tail and it would sell there.
Yeah but did you see him? He is good at this. Wonder if he can pull it off under pressure.
You mean I can’t just make snarky comments without viewing his performance?
Sure. But this guy does worry me given so many low information voters.
Okay — from the snippet which is far more than I wanted to view — my two cents.
First, the audience response was far less raucous than I would have expected. These were “his people” and his speech hit hard on his “Christian” and up by one’s bootstraps identity. The “born again” parents. Against all odds that his parents and he became college educated. And his wife beginning her business career in childhood by baking and selling bread to apple pickers.
The political parts of his speech was a composite of his stump stuff. Obviously written and rehearsed. He’s a more animated speaker than many politicians. Comfortable being on stage and using a variety of gesticulations. Some of that is natural for extroverts and some of it is learned and practiced. On this measure, better than Obama will ever be because he’s not an extrovert.
Yet, he’s not a charismatic speaker for a few reasons. His voice is unpleasant. Speech training in modulation and inflection (which he’s clearly availed himself of) can only do so much. Worse, he lacks the ability to connect on an emotional level. To his words and the audience. Vocally strident in his moments of attempting to connect emotionally. His facial expressions are limited and veer between neutral and smug. Arrogant would be another adjective. He smiles when he thinks he’s said something clever and when the audience responds as expected to a rehearsed applause line.
Physical attractiveness is a plus for a politician, but not a necessity if one’s persona is pleasant-pleasing-personable. That leaves the impression of “nice guy.” Don’t expect to hear that wrt Cruz. He really isn’t very good at selling snake oil.
Outside of the captive audience at Liberty, I’m guessing very few of his potential constituents will watch the “long form” speech. His thirty-second clip, however, is just the kind of vacant platitudes and cinematic fluff which arouse them. Agree about his voice, though; he sometimes sounds like a plaintive weeny.
This campaign is all about earned media, Republican nomination succession jostling and opportunism.
Let’s not forget Ted has the new Freedom Caucus in Congress to raise hell with during the entire nomination circus; establishment Republicans beware. Cruz’ challenge, it seems to me, is to stand well clear when Bush carpet bombs Walker and then wrest the insurgency from Paul in the aftermath.
He must realise only a “black swan” event could win the general election for him; I wonder if he even wants the nomination or just prefers to deny victory to any Republican in anticipation of another run in 2020.
Early days still. Perry’s legal problems may yet become a problem for him. Christie and Walker may also find themselves in hot legal waters.
Have to wait until 9/30 campaign financial filings to see who is even in the game.
History isn’t kind to those Republicans that seek and lose the nomination to set up another run in four to eight years. Dole, McCain, and Romney came back to win the nomination and then lose the general election. Democrats tend to ignore prior nominee losers when they run a second time or they fall flat before or soon after a second appearance in Iowa (Hart and Edwards).
If I had to guess, I’d say Cruz is all in. Attempting a different slice and dice of the GOP primary electorate than seen in 2012. Do the Paul voters stick with Paul-2.0? Who picks up the Santorum and Romney voters? Newt, Perry, and Bachmann received a total of 28% in Iowa. Where do they go?
I see Perfesser Perry as being squeezed out, much like Santorum, this campaign. There are more impressive (sounding) alternatives out there, fresher faces, newer pols better able to string together the names of the three cabinet departments they want to eliminate and do so without stumbling and without the funny perfesser stage props.
The field already has TX macho covered too, with the first-out-of-the-blocks entry of Theodore Cruz, who does Bully better than the Perfesser.
As for shark-eyes Walker, one can only hope his legal troubles reach Christie proportions, or worse. But if not, I don’t see him overcoming Jebbie, outdebating Theodore, or even besting John Kasich for the Most Impressive Current GOP Governor award.
It too don’t see Perry and Santorum as factors this time around. That’s 35% of the IO 2012 caucus votes. But who were those Santorum voters, approximately 25%? My best guess is they were a mix of fundies and conservative Catholics. Probably more of the former but the latter likely not insignificant.
Where did Huck’s 34% in 2008 go in 2012?
That Santorum and Perry are unlikely contenders; not so sanguine about Walker’s legal issues, seems to be a something of a signature for him leaving subordinates to face indictments that narrowly miss Hizzoner. Christie missed the starting blocks. Seems it’s down to Jeb, Walker, Cruz, Paul and a reluctant Huckabee.
Walker has jumped out to an early lead in the “anyone but Bush” stakes; to my mind this puts a target on his back for early opposition research and ratf*cking from the Bush camp before momentum sets in. Cruz and Paul can wait their respective turns while vying for “true believer” purity; I’m guessing Cruz would gain most Paul voters in a Cruz vs Jeb finale. Second place will be an interesting contest.
Seems to me all Cruz has to do is weather the storm, outsmart Paul (yeah, I know) and eat more corn-dogs. Still, I’m betting Cruz is banking on the “we never nominate a real conservative” narrative to have a three-strikes clause; a prior Bush general election defeat really opens things up for Cruz in 2020. Especially if Cruz runs a splashy and convincing nomination campaign.
Good point about Cruz having a Plan B for 2020 if he does run well this time. Because I doubt that his Plan B includes a scheme for being tapped this cycle for VP by Jebbie or Shark Eyes. (Almost equally hard to imagine the Jebster accepting #2.)
Theodore is very smart and, possibly, self-aware enough to know he’s a bit overripe and prone to controversy to make for good VP material. Besides, the GOP won’t have to worry about losing TX until probably 2024 (assuming the US is not in full-out civil war by then …)
In addition to Shark Eyes, I think Marco Rubio is a serious VP pick this time, even if he thinks he can win the nom, for obvious FL/EVs reasons. I see him looking rather diminished and inconsequential as the GOP debates unfold, up against the intensity and intellectuality of a Cruz or the senior steadiness of the Jebster or the cutthroat policies of Shark Eyes.
Walker is in the catbird seat for the moment. And I agree that Cruz isn’t running for VP; though politics is full of surprises. I never really thought of Rubio as presidential timber, however his favourite son appeal as VP seems superfluous to former governor Bush.
Right — Rubio is more the natural pick for someone like Walker. Even the GOP, despite 2000 and the Junior/Cheeney unconstitutional scheming, couldn’t quite overcome the blatantly obvious fact that Jeb and Rubio are both from FL.
Jeb, the most likely nominee, would consider either a Walker as VP or Kasich from OH. Possible he could go female too, perhaps someone like Gov Martinez of NM.
But if the Bush machine is true to form there won’t be enough of Walker left to pour into a suit and send back to Milwaukee never mind join the ticket.
By way of explanation I’m also guessing most of Christie’s and all of Romney’s recent electoral disappointments were not coincidental or inevitable.
And right on cue, a sanitised opposition research dump on Walker from an “investigative” villager.
I see Theodore’s challenge in the early and middle rounds to be to soak up some of the RW evangelical support now going to the more well-known Hucklebee. He can’t afford to go into Iowa having his natural constituency heavily diluted by the Huckster. Cruz is however entirely capable of delivering some hard blows and taking over the lion’s share of that vote.
Santorum I see as less likely to catch fire this time — there are more dynamic alternatives like Huck and Ted and so Ricky is probably headed for an early shower. Ben Carson too will be on the sidelines by December.
In the later rounds leading up to IA, Cruz should then pivot to trying to challenge Jebbie, bring him down a notch or two lest the Jebster deliver a devastating one-two Iowa-NH knockout blow to the field.
As for black swan events, for sure, but good pols expect good things to come their way. Meanwhile the successful ones should only be concentrating on the race in front of them.
Has no fire in his belly any more. Not sure he is going to be a factor beyond Iowa; if there.
I reckon Cruz will fight for second place first; Walker and Paul are his first obstacles. Then he can challenge Bush for the conservative “rumble in the jungle” I’m guessing he has planned. We’ll see.
Agreed on your views of his delivery, marie2, and his overweening vocal stridency is emphasized by the words he is saying. I watched the majority of this speech, and holy fuck does this guy deliver the bloodiest red meat for Krazy Konservatives!
Color me skeptical that non-KK voters will be on board with a POTUS candidate who delivers this Repeal Obamacare/Abolish IRS/install fundamentalist Christian governmental theocracy stump speech.
Certainly blows away the typical body-language-interpreting drivel we normally get from the corporate media. Well done.
Not insightful. Just enough speech and acting classes to know what to look for and at and to be a brutally honest critic.
I would sure like to see him flame out. He is smug for sure. But he knows his talking points and delivers them well. But I hope you are correct in saying he is not effective. I just suppose that his audience is not you or me but the Tea Party and far right. I would still bet he has an audience among those who buy into this sort of thing. So how many want to buy that snake oil? What is unclear to me is does he have enough support of the money interests?
Sustaining interest from the public (demographic irrelevant) requires more than delivering lines an audience approves of. They have to have an emotional experience and/or a desire to see the actor again because of the way such seeing or hearing makes or made them feel. Cruz isn’t attractive enough or well spoken enough to be fascinating to watch or listen to over an extended period of time. Applause lines are like popcorn — easily eaten and quickly forgotten. Women won’t swoon and men won’t easily identify with him or at an emotional level find him admirable or envy him.
Given the choices, he could end up being the teabagger/rightwing choice. But that would also mean that his appeal is limited and he won’t be able to break out of that box.
We disagree on Cruz’s speechmaking abilities. Probably better to give the guy his due. I find him a rather outstanding speaker, a natural advocate/preacher. And the GOP masses will be impressed enough with his obvious speaking talent and intelligence as they are fed a steady diet of his red meat politics, the kind of (overdone) meat and starchy potatoes food the Republican base finds nourishing and American.
Alas I don’t think enough big GOP donors and backroom movers and shakers will be crediting so much the speechmaking ability as fretting over the rather fringey political profile this guy cuts. They would view him as Goldwater ’64 (plus 20 IQ points), and so I’m afraid he will be a long shot.
a natural advocate/preacher.
Looked for that — but there’s no cadence and rhythm in him. Al Sharpton (who everyone knows is a bit of a charlatan and he’s no Jesse Jackson either) gives better preacher style speeches. And Sharpton can ad lib his way to that when his prepared remarks don’t get there with an audience. Seriously, take a look at the video of Cruz from last week when he didn’t have a primed-to-be adoring audience. Fell completely flat.
The first thought after watching Palin’s acceptance speech was “Uh oh.” She echoed that thing that Reagan had in his prime, circa 1965. Back then he really was exceptionally good at emotionally stirring a live audience. It’s a hard act to maintain at that performance level, but he didn’t need to. 50%+1 is all he needed and even as a doddering old fool, he could get there. As an adult and leftie, I wasn’t emotionally moved by Palin but could recognize how easily she pulled those strings in others. Unlike Reagan, she doesn’t have the intelligence, hard earned skill set, and discipline to maintain and repeat that performance. IOW a novice that sang all the right notes one time (not that uncommon in the arts and sports).
Cruz wants to do it “his way.” That’s why few of the moneybags will join his crusade. Wouldn’t matter if he had that thing you think he has because there’s easily ten million fundies that can easily throw $100 each into his collection plate this year and next year. Plus on a personal level, Cruz isn’t likeable except among a fringe coterie. Wasn’t in college or law school and isn’t in Congress.
Of course the Rev Al has been at this public speaking for 30+ yrs, while young Theodore is still relatively a newbie. But Sharpton appeals to a smaller slice of the electorate compared to the likely 25-30% of people of the hard right/TP/xtian fundie persuasion. You don’t see cadence or rhythm w/Ted, but I do. Sort of a combination of white preacher and slick, glib tv commentator.
In any event, Ted is clearly out to take the TP/fundie vote, as he’s establishing a political beachhead so far to the right, he defines the rightward boundary.
Unfortunately, if done carefully so as not to offend too many TP primary voters, Jebbie can offer a less abrasive style and hard-edged politics which will look most reasonable and attractive to general election voters.
Theodore is likely to scare off party bigwigs and money elites, while the Jebster will look to them like a far less risky general election winner.
Your number for the hard right/TP/xtian fundie voter set is too large. The purest, recent enough numbers that we have to work with from the 2008 GOP Iowa caucuses. Stipulating that IO is 50/50 Democrat/Republican, all fundies are Republicans, IO is a perfect sample of the US population, and the hard right base of the GOP isn’t over or under represented at the caucuses, it’s only 17% (Huck’s 34% of 50%).
In 2012, Santorum may have only held onto half of Huck’s voters. Huck had that nice guy, preacher thing going for him back then which shouldn’t be discounted. Cruz falls short on the preacher man dimension and way short on “nice guy.”
Sarah Palin started off with a couple of pretty good speeches too. Unfortunately (for her) she kept letting stuff escape her mouth. I think we’ll see the same thing happen to Cruz.
Cruz is a lot smarter than Palin or Walker.
Palin, ’08, was more physically attractive. Her folksy bullying was more initially palatable because it was presented as semi-serious. Nothing folksy or charming about Cruz and Walker bullying style.
Right in the Republican comfort zone — they love bullies and bully tough talk, authoritarian types. Going back at least to John Wayne.
And how appropriate that Cruz the authoritarian bully spoke before a forced attendance jugend group at Liberty Valance U.
I want to encourage all my GOP friends out there — both of them — to please give Theodore Cruz a listen and consider voting for him this upcoming primary season. He’s smarter than Mike Hucklebee and makes Jebbie Bush look soft on just about everything.
It makes little girls cry and peels off just enough of the white female vote for them to lose general elections. GWB was the last to get away with it — just barely — and he masked the harder edges with his “compassionate conservative” schtick and joked around with the media folks on his campaign plane. The bully edges of Cruz and Walker are too sharp.
Well Theodore peels off the paint around here. But in Gooper households, he’s fertilizer for their astroturf lawns. And I think “Ted” has smoothed over enough sharp edges from his last earthly incarnation as Tailgunner Joe not only to win the nom but to give Hillary a good run for it in the general.
At least in the Deep South, Arizona, and several of the big empty boxy states out west …
You might want to reconsider referring to Cruz as Theodore because his name is Rafael Edward Cruz. Can’t recall anyone calling Edward M Kennedy “Theodore.”
I was struck again this evening when seeing another replay of Cruz’s announcement how much he looks like Joe McCarthy. Almost could be his grandson or great grandson. Frightening when you think about it.
Perhaps that’s a similarity one of his GOP opponents can capitalize on in a really relevant way.
Not worth the effort because there simply aren’t many people around that have any familiarity with McCarthy visual imagery.
While I agree that superficially Cruz does resemble McCarthy, the similarity ends there. Cruz is emotionally contained. McCarthy was an alcoholic and wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t also consume uppers and downers. Emotionally labile.
Similarities: startling physical resemblance. Rather whiny, plaintive voice. Extremist politics. Ability to command attention. Natural political and speechmaking abilities. Quick impressive rise to important national office.
McCarthy likely started out emotionally stable as well, the drinking increasing to uncontrollable dimensions as he got deeper into his charges and accusations and investigations. I assume this because he was befriended by pater Joe Kennedy, who normally would not give a minute of his time to the obvious drunk that Joe became towards the end. Joe also allegedly dated one or two of his daughters, who apparently found him charming.
With the supremely confident, smoothed-out Ted, even more than rough-around-the-edges Joe, you really get the feeling of someone who’s been there/done that in the world of politics. I suspect it’s because he was there, as the Tailgunner.
You’re assuming any of his opponents think resembling Tailgunner Joe is a bad thing.
Ah the bar has been lowered to a new low…don’t worry they will still find a way to trip over it.
At least he didn’t read from Dr.Seuss.
Or My Pet Goat.
But he had on google contacts.(Beta edition)
As someone on twitter noted earlier today, time to bring back the old Goldwater slogan: “because in your guts, you know he’s nuts.”
There, The Hill, FT[H]FY*
*fixed that [headline] for you
Why would anyone need prompting assistance for spouting ridiculous wingnut talking points, many of them long ago refuted/discredited here in Reality (e.g., climate denialism)? Which is Cruz’s entire shtick.
Perhaps it’s just too obvious, but no one has noted yet that the purpose of this comment was to dig at Obama, because of the racist wing meme that Obama cannot give a speech without a Teleprompter.
Nevermind the extremely large library of speeches given by Obama successfully without a teleprompter. Nevermind that the racist party’s two favorite presidents, Reagan and (though they aren’t quite ready to admit it yet in public) Dubya both were disasters without a teleprompter. This meme works because it fits their beliefs that blacks are dumb. And yes, it’s just that simple.
There are a few signature beliefs of the racist party that show just how racist they really are, and the teleprompter meme is one of them.