Angry at Ted Cruz, Republicans should remember what he represents

Republicans have a good chance to win control of the Senate this November. Democrats are on the defensive over Obamacare, the president is unpopular, and history suggests second-term mid-terms are nearly always unlucky for the White House.

Given that, why is there so much division, backbiting, and bad blood among some Senate Republicans? Last seen during the government shutdown fiasco, the GOP malady returned this week with a debt ceiling mini-fiasco, and it threatens to revisit the Senate any number of times before Election Day.

There is at least one common thread in the shutdown and debt ceiling incidents, and that is Sen. Ted Cruz. For whatever reason, the Texas freshman has at times goaded his party to dysfunction, embarrassment, and defeat. (Not quite singlehandedly; others, like Sens. Mike Lee and Rand Paul, have also been done their bit.)

Many in the GOP believe Cruz is just out for himself. But even if that's true, they have to remember that he represents more than just Ted Cruz. There are a lot of Republicans -- it's not clear how many, but a significant portion of the party's base -- that cheers Cruz on when he battles with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. They want to see a Republican throw a wrench in the Washington spending machine, even if it creates chaos and damages the GOP's standing with independent voters. And it is that conviction that is really behind the party's problems; it is why Republicans would not enjoy smooth sailing even if Cruz were to retire tomorrow.

What was remarkable about the brief debt limit fight is how small the stakes were. Republicans, burned by recent failures, did not propose to add some huge fiscal reform -- a restructuring of entitlements, for example -- to a measure to raise the debt limit. Instead, they discussed more modest measures, like reworking the cost-of-living adjustment for veterans that was part of the recent bipartisan budget deal.

When the week began, Senate Republicans expected the House to attach something small to the debt limit bill that would be sent to the Senate. They were taken off guard Tuesday morning when House Speaker John Boehner announced that wouldn't happen -- that the House, relying on mostly Democratic votes, would instead pass a bill to raise the debt limit with no strings attached.

Senate Republicans met in their weekly lunch a few hours after Boehner's announcement. The short version of events is that McConnell urged colleagues to allow a vote on the House debt limit bill. If the GOP did not object, it could be passed with a simple 51-vote majority, and since there are 55 Democrats in the Senate who would vote for it, every Republican could vote against it and it would still pass. Problem solved; there would be no more default talk, and Republicans could go back to slamming Democrats over Obamacare.

Then Cruz stood up and said there was no way in the world he would stand by and allow a debt ceiling increase to be passed with just 51 votes. Cruz insisted on a 60-vote threshold, which the rules allowed him to do. That meant at least five Republicans would have to join Democrats for the debt limit to be raised.

It would be an understatement to say that many of Cruz's GOP colleagues were righteously ticked off at him. Nobody wanted to vote to raise the debt limit, but many believed strongly that a losing fight over spending would damage the party. Besides, Cruz didn't even have a plan for what to do had his Republican colleagues improbably decided to go along with him.

So after some testy exchanges at the lunch, and a lot of negotiating in the afternoon, McConnell and other leaders decided to vote for the debt limit increase. Then several other Republicans, mostly those in unthreatened seats, agreed to vote along with them to provide cover. The bill passed with 12 Republicans joining all 55 Democrats.

Cruz, of course, voted no and accused lawmakers who voted yes of "not listening to the American people." He even suggested those who are up for re-election — a group that very prominently includes McConnell himself — might soon pay a heavy price. "Sometimes, come November, the people remember," Cruz said.

In the end, the gambit accomplished nothing for Senate Republicans. Some GOP lawmakers who already disliked Cruz now dislike him even more. But the episode did remind the Republican leadership, as if it needs any reminding, that there are conservatives around the country who are deeply frustrated by the GOP and want it to show some fight.

To them, Cruz represents that fight. Maybe they've been misled. Maybe they're living in a fantasy land. But that's what they believe. Republican leaders have to keep them in mind as November approaches.

Speaking of truth...

I watched Ted Cruz during his valiant effort to halt the disaster called Obamacare. I hope you watched it as well. If he used it once, he used the phrase “...we no longer listen to the people, our constituents...” over a hundred times. And he was right...they don’t. And the fact is, THEY NO LONGER NEED TO.

I’ve sent my little rant on this topic before but Ted’s honest comment compels me to do so again.
*************

WHY THE POLITICAL RULING CLASS NO LONGER LISTENS TO US!
“When the servants of the people are paid with something other than that which the people themselves have produced (i.e. the real, tangible products of their labors or some fixed and real medium of that exchange), the roles of master and servant will be reversed.”

That was Thomas Jefferson warning that the financial disaster we now face would be but one of many problems paper money would visit upon us if we allowed our “leaders” to remove the backing from the currency.

It was believed by Roger Sherman and a majority of those at the Constitutional Convention that unbacked fiat currency would so damage the fabric of the nation that they ATTEMPTED to prohibit it with these few words at Article 1, Section 10, requiring the states to enforce the prohibition: “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;”

If the people and their states grew inattentive to this matter (and they have!), Jefferson also saw another problem ahead.

In a letter to John Taylor in 1816, he wrote, “And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”

We have been “…swindling futurity…” for a long time and this is now where we find ourselves. If the government, through its banker masters at the Federal Reserve, can create “money” from thin air, they certainly don’t need ours every April 15th. That annual sheep shearing is simply an attempt to vacuum enough of the excess paper from the system to keep the rest of us from catching on to the biggest theft ring in the history of man. They have now created so much that their attempt is failing and failing badly to a point where all but the dullest among us (Obama voters and his growing cadres of personal and corporate welfare beneficiaries) are starting to “get it.”

If you understood that last paragraph, you can now make the small leap to an understanding as to why the “progressive” utopian welfare state hacks in Washington don’t give a damn WHAT you think. Their power to create all the “money” they need to fuel their infernal machine and fill the gaping maws of enough of those growing hoards of welfare constituents to assure their perpetual re-election means that — ready — THEY NO LONGER NEED YOU! They have become, as Mr. Jefferson predicted, our MASTERS.

We won’t have even a CHANCE at an honest government until we again have HONEST MONEY.

That they are taking down a nation and a system that has provided more wealth, safety and abundance to more people than any other in history matters not to them. Failing to grasp the lesson of the French Revolution, they believe themselves to be above the impending disaster.

We’re running out of time to get this increasingly rapacious beast back into the cage from which we have carelessly allowed it to escape.

Dick Bachert

PS: I was a 3 year member of the national board of CATS (Citizens for an Alternative Tax System), the precursor to the current Fair Tax organization. I fully support the concept of a CONSUMPTION TAX over the current Marxist INCOME TAX. That said, UNTIL WE GET BACK TO HONEST “MONEY”, WERE REARRANGING DECK CHAIRS ON A SINKING SHIP.

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.