Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Argh! Cruz Flames Out

Senator Ted Cruz
It wasn't the fact of Ted Cruz's endorsement of Trump.

There are such things as political realities. And most of the Republican candidates said on the debate stage at one time or another that any of the other candidates on the stage would be superior to Hillary Clinton.

It was how it was done and is being explained.

He should have done it in Cleveland if he was going to do it. The wait won him no new friends and created lots of enemies.

Saying he, his wife and his father have forgiven Trump sounds very Ben Carsonish. Very nice of them, but it doesn't change Donald Trump's character. For the good of the country we shouldn't allow a presidential candidate (or a president) to slander whoever stands in his/her way. What's to stop such a president from putting innocent people in jail or seizing their property just because they block some desired action. Actually, sounds like what the BLM, EPA and Asset Forfeiture Program are currently doing.

Then there's how Cruz explained his tipping point.
And as you know, the developments last week were a major reason why I made the decision to vote for Trump in November, because on Friday, he put out a list of 21 judges, and a couple of important things. One, as you noted, he put my friend and colleague, Mike Lee, at the top of the list. Senator Mike Lee, I think, would make an extraordinary Supreme Court justice to replace Antonin Scalia. But secondly, and this was the most important part of the list, and much of the media missed this, when he put it out, he explicitly committed that the only people he would consider are the 21 names on the list. Previously, they had put out a list of 11 names, but there had been no commitment other than these are among the people we will look at. On Friday, they locked themselves in and said these 21 are the only ones up for consideration. That was a major new development, and it was a major new development exactly along the lines of what I had urged in Cleveland, which is that I wanted to see our nominee defend freedom, defend the Constitution, and the Supreme Court is going to be right at the crossroads of determining whether the Bill of Rights remains vibrant in protecting our liberties, or whether it is rendered a dead letter by a Hillary Clinton judicial activist Court.
"[Trump] explicitly committed that the only people he would consider are the 21 names on the list.... On Friday, they locked themselves in and said these 21 are the only ones up for consideration." !?!?!?

Less than five months ago Cruz said Trump is a pathological liar. But, now Trump's word is his bond? Maybe Iran's word is now worth something too.

I have a lot of respect for Ted Cruz's courage in standing up to the Republican political establishment and calling them out for their duplicity. But, it seems his judgment is not as towering as his courage.

Two Republicans who have done the anti-Hillary stand better are:

Senator Ben Sasse and wife
Senator Ben Sasse (who has had a light touch in the midst of making serious points) and
Carly Fiorina

Carly Fiorina (who is just flat out a great, hard hitting speaker).

Both are very anti-Hillary without telling lies or fawning over a terribly flawed Republican presidential candidate.


MAX Redline said...

The Cruz endorsement was disappointing, as was his explanation; Ferret-top flops around like a fish on a dock, so I have no reason to believe that he'll remain "locked in" when it comes to SCOTUS.

T. D. said...

Not to mention that even if Trump did stick to the list, what if the Dems filibuster all 21 on the list? Trump then won't appoint anyone? That would be stupid. It makes no sense for Trump to say he'll stick to a list or for Ted Cruz not to know political realities about lists. It shows them both as knowing less than I do about politics. Which is not a good thing at their level of leadership.

MAX Redline said...

I think you meant "at their level of pandering".

T. D. said...

See, I need a copy editor. Heh.