Early voting in Georgia. On the 20th of October this old Goldwater conservative voted against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton by casting my vote for Gary Johnson. Neither Trump or Clinton belong within a million miles of the Oval Office.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
Well, that's what I expect him to do. Represent Texas. Work for Texas. The People of Texas. Let's hope this isn't a dog and pony and that he sticks to it. He'll have to settle down if he wants to be more than a fire brand. Not compromising on his principles is the main concern.
Obama ran on allot, and I am ashamed I voted for him in 08 even if it was moreso against McCain than it was for Obama....
I just would like to see one politician point themselves in one direction and stick to it.
That he has both sides getting itchy gives me hope, but being a Canadian born this is the height of his career so...
Cruz is a snake in the grass. He has already shown that he will choose money over his principals. He wouldn't have even gotten the nomination except for some silly primary rules and a lower turnout runoff.
The NYT article mentions Cruz as one of them "ardent conservatives", along with Rand Paul, Jeff Flake and Mike Lee (who are not "conservative" at all, but "as libertarian as it gets in real major-leagure politics"). I am not saying that none of them ever voted in a fashion that made me mad - but the Old Gray Lady has no right to reinvent meaning of words at a whim. Not to mention that he is apparently on collision course with Jeff Flake (and Rubio) over the "amnesty").
His voting record so far is impressive for a certain kind of Republcians, but decidedly nothing-yet-to-celebrate for a consisent libertarian. Especially for a consistent moderate libertarian (like with his vote on the Sandy relief; yes, they are holding the victims of hurricane hostage to their pork-barreling; yes, it is disgusting; but don't shoot through the hostage).
OK, there seems to be stong hope that he may be a consistent "fiscal conservative", tea-party style, and a "libertarian by half".
But here is the problem: to succeed in politics as a libertarian, you generally have to be a populist and show some "folksy" - and sometimes mean - side. There are exceptions among libertarian-ish politicians, like Bill Weld or the same Flake, but they are rare. You don't get votes by quoting Friedman and Hayek, or by trying to reason with the auidence.
It remains to be seen whether he is "one of the good guys in Congress" (even by my relaxed standards). But I'm kinda relieved that he was born in the sweet little monarchy up north, if you know what I mean :-)
Speaking of "rabble rousers", funny, you didn't hear anyone calling for Harry Reid's head when he made accusations against Mitt Romney about not paying taxes. And he had no source, no evidence either. Only that he heard about it.
I don't agree with Mr Cruz's challenge of Hagel. I think Hagel will be good for the troops. Taking care of the military isn't giving us more money in order to send us to more places to get involved in more nation building. Taking care of the military is keeping us from ever going over to nation build again. I believe Hagel will do that.
As far as voting against the Violence Against Women Act and Sandy Relief, I would have to research why he did that. As is standard operating procedure on Capital Hill, politicians attach a heart string pulling name to a bill then put some totally unrelated policy inside of the bill. I would be willing to bet that is what happened with these bills and Mr Cruz voted against them.
We the sheeple continue to demonize people that get into office and vote no repeatedly or shake things up. Meanwhile, we give Congress a 12% approval rating. So which is it? Do we want something new or more of the same?
“Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson
Sure as a private lawyer he can represent who he wants but it shows me that money is more important to him than values. That is not a quality I want in my senator. I do not trust him to protect Texas' interest if it will hurt him financially or politically.
Kay Bailey Hutchison is also a lawyer. Cornyn was a lawyer before he was the Texas Supremes' head justice.
From Wiki Answers:
Out of a total of 435 U.S. Representatives and 100 Senators (535 total in Congress), lawyers comprise the biggest voting block of one type, making up 43% of Congress. Sixty percent of the U.S. Senate is lawyers.
Enough said. 37.2% of the House of Representatives are lawyers.
There are 81 Republican lawyers in Congress who list "lawyer" as their profession. There are 123 Democrat lawyers in Congress that list "lawyer" as their profession. Some may have not told that they had a law degree or practiced law, because they were doing something else, e.g., doctor, industrialist, teacher, real estate agent/broker, etc. It seems that the medical and real estate professions are also heavily represented in Congress.
What percentage of US congress members are lawyers