Skip to comments.David Brooks warns of ‘the rise of Ted Cruz-ism,’ takeover of Republican Party (that's a bad thing?)
Posted on 09/14/2013 1:58:05 PM PDT by Sparticus
On PBSs NewsHour on Friday night, New York Times columnist David Brooks warned that Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and similar legislators rise to prominence threatens the traditional Republican Party.
Brooks insists the motives of Cruz are less about legislation and policy and more about the politics of undermining the Republican establishment.
Whats going on in the House, and a bit in the Senate, too, is what you might call the rise of Ted Cruz-ism, Brooks said. And Ted Cruz, the senator from Canada through Texas, is basically not a legislator in the normal sense, doesnt have an idea that hes going to Congress to create coalitions, make alliances, and he is going to pass a lot of legislation. Hes going in more as a media-protest person. And a lot of the House Republicans are in the same mode. Theyre not normal members of Congress. Theyre not legislators. They want to stop things. And so theyre just being they just want to obstruct.
And the second thing theyre doing, which is alarming a lot of Republicans, is theyre running against their own party, he continued. Ted Cruz is running against Republicans in the Senate. The House Republican Tea Party types are running against the Republican establishment. Thats how theyre raising money. Thats where theyre spending their money on ads. And so theyre having a very obstructive role which is going on this week, and I think its going to make John Boehners life even more difficult.
Brooks hypothesized the reason the leadership in the House and Senate is unable to control the so-called Ted Cruz-ism movement is that members of it have become uninterested in any of the perks that the leadership has to offer.
Two things that are interesting that are happening, especially being talked about this week, Brooks said. One, leadership in both bodies, the leaderships inability to force any discipline. Thats partly because a lot of these people just are not interested in the committee assignments, the normal leverage the leadership has, in part because the earmarks are gone, some of the spending favors.
Brooks continued that the policy goals of Cruz and others werent actual policy goals, but a means to take over the Republican Party.
[S]o the leadership cant impose any discipline on a Ted Cruz, Brooks said. Theres nothing they can punish him with. And, remember, what these people, Ted Cruz and some of the tea party people, their object is not to win Obamacare. Their object is to take over the Republican Party. So, they really are running against the Republicans. And for Ted Cruz, its potentially to get the nomination. And taking this down, if it can mobilize enough Republicans so he can take over the party and become really transform the party, then that becomes the object. And one little straw in the wind, the Heritage Foundation, a very prominent conservative think tank, is running against Republicans. And thats part of the change that is going on here.
Oh noes! Somebody is gonna threaten your comfy position?
Go Ted! Go!
Memo to Mr. Brooks: we've had quite enough of your democrap-lite version of Republicanism. Just go away.
PS: They all are REALLY scared of Senator Cruz. He's quite brilliant and they know it.
I used to hear Brooks debate EJ Dionne on NPR. Believe it or not, Dionne tended to be more critical of Obama -- he saw room for the president to improve. Not Brooks! No, no! As far as David was concerned, Obama achieved perfection on a daily basis and pretty much walked on water -- that was his "Conservative" viewpoint.
Cruzism > Brooksism
Cruz/Palin or Palin/Cruz.
“but a means to take over the Republican Party.”
Cruz (and a very few others) threaten a RETURN to the old traditional Republican Party.
Which is why pseudo-conservative elitist Washington Beltway statist sycophant DIABLOS* like Brooks hate him /them.
*Democrat In All But Name Only...Conservatives are the real RINOs anymore.
Repeal of bad laws is a noble endeavor of a Legislator.
We are right over the target.
Brooks cannot stand that Ted us not beholden to the machine.
Whats going on in the House, and a bit in the Senate, too, is what you might call the rise of Ted Cruz-ism,
Go Ted! Go!
One man standing on the principal that he represents many.
I applaud Cruz for standing for his constituents and not cowing to the power brokers that sell us out.
Oh, there are gonna be some black eyes, but the bullies will get the message if Ted stays on track.
*Democrat In All But Name Only
Democrat In All But Label Only.
Woot! Woot! Go Cruz!
I say we give the man a medal.
But, someone gets some press for castigating liberals and look out! The Left gets all in a tizzy and tries to marginalize the person. Shows what they are really afraid of.
Ted Cruz: ...a United Nations Security Council vote condemning Syria for attacking its own citizens with chemical weapons... "would unify the world against the regime and expose Chinas and Russias support for this tyrant... we should make them veto it on the world stage... And if they do veto it, we should respond by, with respect to Russia, we should reinstate the anti-ballistic missile station in Eastern Europe that was canceled at the beginning of the Obama administration to appease Russia, and with respect to China, we should go through with selling the new F-16s to Taiwan that again this administration put the kibosh [on]." [Tea party friction: Sen. Rand Paul lashes Ted Cruz approach to Russia and China (s/b 'Rand Paul calls for appeasement while continuing to pretend to oppose Obama')]
We are forces of chaos and anarchy
Everything that they say we are, we are
And we are very proud of ourselves
It is because of the likes David Brooks and his phony, elitist fellow travellers that we desparately need Ted Cruz and more like him.
Another Democrat scumbag is concerned that a Republican is trying to "obstruct" the progress of the communist agenda.
Oh, heaven forfend!
Oh, dear! Cruz isn't there to expand the size of government? How could any sensible person support him?
This is a damn outrage, in reaction to Bennett losing.
So, now we’re having a big debate about Syria, which is derailing immigration and everything else he wants to do, when his whole policy was to get out of the Middle East.
Brooks and Shields thought there would be an AWB by now.
I sure am getting tired of Brooks and his incessant bullshit.
You gotta give it to Dave, he's a deep thinker, isn't he? Yeah, Dave, they are, and this is the reason:
[Cruz] doesnt have an idea that hes going to Congress to create coalitions, make alliances, and he is going to pass a lot of legislation.
Bingo. Because we don't want a "lot of legislation" passed, Dave, the country and our society are being choked to death with regulation. It isn't a matter of which flavor of bigger government we get. We don't want it at all. What we want is a smaller, less ubiquitous government that taxes us less. What we want is a less racist, redistributive, and oppressive government. What we want is our freedom back.
Dave, he just doesn't get it.
You go Ted, kick the rinocrats to the curb!
Brooks thinks its bad because he fears Cruz might give the Hildebeast a run for her money...
I was fortunate to live in Texas during his election and am proud I sent him to the Senate.
Mr. Brooks can pound sand.
I’ve been saying since early 2010 that the “tea party” is a hostile takeover of the Republican Party— a takeover long overdue.
warned that Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and similar legislators rise to prominence threatens the traditional Republican Party.
The Entrenched Republican Party is nothing more then Democrat lite...
heaven help us if we should actually be governed by the real constitution
Shouldn’t Brooks be sniffing obama’s pant-leg, or whatever the heck he does with his free time?
Brooks just makes up accusations as he sees fit.
So Dave, I take it you don’t care for the crease in Ted Cruz’s pants?
Hey Dave, it called a pendulum. And it's about finished the swing in your direction. I'd suggest you get used to this. We ARE taking OUR country back!
What does old David think should happen to the GOP. Have Flimsy and McLame continue to take the party over the cliff.
Got them running scared.
Run, Ted, Run!!
The Cruzers, like a naval assault battle group, is out of the port and steaming toward the point of engagement with the avowed enemies of liberty, truth and freedom. If that means shooting down the buzzing little drones sent over the territory once known as “the United States of America”, then that will be the order of battle.
There is much to be said for a two-party nation, and the Hegelian notion of thesis versus antithesis leading to a new synthesis does work, but only if both the thesis and the antithesis are within narrowly defined limits. If the thesis is too greatly differentiated from the antithesis, there can never be a synthesis.
It is never necessary to agree with the opponent’s premise, but failure to establish ground rules about where the discussion may lead will effectively shut down practical negotiations for a comfortable resolution of the differences.
We have seen hidden agendas injected into some of the most basic of matters. Agreeing with another’s premise, without having defined and reasoned basis to support that agreement, is simply to undercut your own moral high ground and concede the debate before it is begun.
That requires a degree of intellectual honesty on both parties to the debate, and ditching the bombast and rhetoric that does not bear upon the point in question.
As an example, to disagree with Barack Obama is not “racist”. It is to disagree with a particular way of approaching a problem, and to take issue with the way it has been or is being resolved, and to point out the various shortcomings of that resolution. Then the option of trying another approach to further resolve the problem cannot be categorically ruled out, and it is neither immoral nor unjust to call out the opponent for being simply wrong.
It may turn out that the opponent is seemingly wrong in the whole, but may very well not be wrong in part, and it is in these points which are not wrong that agreement may be reached. There may still be strong differences in the underlying premises of both sides, but the practical solution is still based on logical and useful compromises.
“My way or the highway” is not a negotiation. First of all, there has to be a highway for that alternative to even exist, and secondly, there is indication that inflexibility has set in, with both reason and logic gone out the window.
LOL. David must have read Matt Kibbe’s book, “Hostile Takeover” and finally figured out what we want to do. He’s exactly right.
Ted Cruz is bringing us back to a two party system.
Brooks could sleep much better at night if he would give up his quisling ways and join the Democratic Party and invite McPain and Lindsey Graham to join him an exodus too.
And we all know that the purpose of electing Republicans is to make John Boehner's life easy.
[S]o the leadership cant impose any discipline on a Ted Cruz, Brooks said.
Ah, yes, I remember reading in the Constitution about how the purpose of the legislative branch of government is for the 'leadership' to impose discipline on party members. Oh, wait, I must be thinking of the purpose of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Never mind...
You know what I love about this guy Jim?
He never gets rattled, He never gets personal, He just chips away.
Rand Paul was raised off the government teet provided to him by his kook career politician dad, Wrong Paul. I’ve heard too many negative things about Son-of Wrong.
Yep, I didn’t vote for Cruz to go and join some “Gang of Eight”, I voted for him to represent Texas. It was the most enjoyable vote since my last vote for Reagan in 84’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.