What Do You Think Of Cruz?

The Jr. Senator from Texas is making quite a name for himself. Even the GOP is attacking him.

What do you think?

ChezC3 said:

The Jr. Senator from Texas is making quite a name for himself. Even the GOP is attacking him.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

Mind telling us how he's making quite a name for himself, and why the GOP is attacking him?

ChezC3 said:

http://http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/us/politics/ted-cruz-runs-counter-to-courtly-ways-of-the-senate.html

Click to expand...

Link does not work.

ChezC3 said:

The Jr. Senator from Texas is making quite a name for himself. Even the GOP is attacking him.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

According to the article I am left with the impression Cruz is the rabble rouser. But the article is in the NY Times and the Times is a very pro Democratic newspaper. If Cruz is making inneuendos without nothing to back them up, it does smack of McCarthyism. Then he needs to be put in his place rather quickly. I won't vote on this until I see and hear more.

ttwtt78640 said:

Link does not work.

Click to expand...

You have to hack off the first part of the URL to the NY times part of it. He is an ubber conservative-tea party guy who has been going after Hagel pretty hard making accusations like he has been paid off by foreign governments.

try now

ttwtt78640 said:

Link does not work.

Click to expand...

Too many http's. I just deleted the first http and then went straight to the site.

Perotista said:

According to the article I am left with the impression Cruz is the rabble rouser. But the article is in the NY Times and the Times is a very pro Democratic newspaper. If Cruz is making inneuendos without nothing to back them up, it does smack of McCarthyism. Then he needs to be put in his place rather quickly. I won't vote on this until I see and hear more.

Click to expand...

The NYT bias is all over the article. I had been hearing all sorts about this bloke -- thought I'd go to the public for some additional feedback...

(I fixed the link having forgot about the extra http)

ChezC3 said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/us/politics/ted-cruz-runs-counter-to-courtly-ways-of-the-senate.html

Click to expand...

Yep. That is somehow entriely different than Reid asserting, via an un-named source, that Romney paid no FIT for ten years. The NYT is not exactly a neutral source for republicant concerns. He may not play well with others or give "proper respect" to the politically connected, but that is EXACTLY what he campaigned on. I voted for him, applaud his direct manner and respect his representation - so far.

ChezC3 said:

The NYT bias is all over the article. I had been hearing all sorts about this bloke -- thought I'd go to the public for some additional feedback...

(I fixed the link having forgot about the extra http)

Click to expand...

I can't really help you with that, I haven't paid him any attention. But now I will keep an ear open.

ttwtt78640 said:

Yep. That is somehow entriely different than Reid asserting, via an un-named source, that Romney paid no FIT for ten years. The NYT is not exactly a neutral source for republicant concerns. He may not play well with others or give "proper respect" to the politically connected, but that is EXACTLY what he campainged on. I voted for him, applaud his direct manner and respect his representation - so far.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't expect anything less from Reid. Personally, if this is what Cruz ran on, being a burr in the saddle, and he's doing it, I say more power to the guy.

ChezC3 said:

Well, I don't expect anything less from Reid. Personally, if this is what Cruz ran on, being a burr in the saddle, and he's doing it, I say more power to the guy.

Click to expand...

Actually it is what Obama ran on initially, but then he kicked back and let congress critters create huge nanny state additions like PPACA. Now that congress is no longer a totally demorat rubber stamp machine, Obama is lost. Cruz may turn out to be a good influence, representing Texas rather than simply allowing ever more federal power and control. He will likely settle down some but playing games like McCain, Dole and other great RINOs is not what he was elected to do.

ttwtt78640 said:

Actually it is what Obama ran on initially, but then he kicked back and let congress critters create huge nanny state additions like PPACA. Now that congress is no longer a totally demorat rubber stamp machine, Obama is lost. Cruz may turn out to be a good influence, representing Texas rather than simply allowing ever more federal power and control. He will likely settle down some but playing games like McCain, Dole and other great RINOs is not what he was elected to do.

Click to expand...

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

Texas1836 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Care to support your character assassination with specifics?

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?

nota bene said:

Care to support your character assassination with specifics?

Click to expand...

Cruz's only qualification for senator was being a lawyer. His record as a lawyer included defending a Chinese trademark thief versus a US citizen. His original response was that he was a private citizen and can represent who he wants. When people didn't but that he later backtracked that and then claimed he wasn't the "lead" lawyer on it even though it was his signature on all the papers.

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

Texas1836 said:

Cruz's only qualification for senator was being a lawyer. His record as a lawyer included defending a Chinese trademark thief versus a US citizen. His original response was that he was a private citizen and can represent who he wants. When people didn't but that he later backtracked that and then claimed he wasn't the "lead" lawyer on it even though it was his signature on all the papers.

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.

Click to expand...

Lawyers often represent "bad folks" in criminal and civil cases, but that is expected, in fact, often demanded in our legal system. Should lawyers not offer legal advice and services to these "bad folks"?

ttwtt78640 said:

Lawyers often represent "bad folks" in criminal and civil cases, but that is expected, in fact, often demanded in our legal system. Should lawyers not offer legal advice and services to these "bad folks"?

Click to expand...

No they should not offer counsel to "folks" from other countries who were actively trying to destroy our economy. Especially if they want to be a US senator.

Texas1836 said:

No they should not offer counsel to "folks" from other countries who were actively trying to destroy our economy. Especially if they want to be a US senator.

Click to expand...

So illegal aliens should not get any legal representation now. You seem to like the fact that Obama uses a dreamy version of our immigration law yet wish foreign "bad folks" to get no legal representation. Deportation hearings should now take mere seconds with no legal aid allowed for foreign "criminals".

Texas1836 said:

No they should not offer counsel to "folks" from other countries who were actively trying to destroy our economy. Especially if they want to be a US senator.

Click to expand...

Why? Everyone is entitled to counsel of their choice in legal matters.

Does your argument extend to border invaders who cross into the country illegally and steal jobs? As despicable as border invading is IMO, even I think that when caught they are entitled to legal counsel.

I know nothing of Cruz, but being a lawyer doing his job should not disqualify him from representing the people who elected him.

ttwtt78640 said:

So illegal aliens should not get any legal representation now. You seem to like the fact that Obama uses a dreamy version of our immigration law yet wish foreign "bad folks" to get no legal representation. Deportation hearings should now take mere seconds with no legal aid allowed for foreign "criminals".

Click to expand...

We were talking about civil matters not criminal ones, apples and oranges.