Skip to comments.Sowell: Cruz Control? Part II - GOP leaders ignore his appeal at GOP's own peril
Posted on 02/19/2014 11:14:41 AM PST by jazusamo
Senator Ted Cruz is a hero in some Republican circles and the opposite among many of his Senate Republican colleagues.
At this crucial juncture in the history of America, internal battles within the only party that can turn things around are the last thing Americans need. Moreover, each side in this political civil war has all too many valid criticisms of the other.
The Republican establishments criticisms of Senator Cruz are criticisms of his rule-or-ruin strategy, which can destroy whatever chance Republicans have of taking back the Senate in 2014 and taking back the White House in 2016. And, without political power, there is no real hope of changing things in Washington.
Senator Cruzs filibuster last year got the Republicans blamed for shutting down the government and his threatened filibuster this year forced several Republican Senators to jeopardize their own reelection prospects by voting to impose cloture, to prevent Cruz from repeating his self-serving grandstand play of last year. The Republicans need every vote they can get in the Senate plus additional votes by defeating some Democrats who are running for the Senate this fall. It can be a very close call. Jeopardizing the reelection of current Republican Senators is an act of utter irresponsibility, a high risk with zero benefits to anyone except Ted Cruz and the Democrats.
However unjustified Senator Cruzs actions, the very fact that a freshman Senator can so quickly gain so many supporters, with so much enthusiasm, ought to be a loud warning to the Republican establishment that they have long been a huge disappointment to a wide range of Republican voters and supporters.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
The only ones who “blame” Cruz for the shutdown are the liberal media.
As far as I am concerned they could keep it shut down permanently!
LOL. A little better than yesterday’s, but he’s still worried about Senator Cruz.
At least today he placed the blame on the very weak Boehner and the unprincipled GOP-e.
I am glad, I guess, that he decided to “clarify”
OK, who are you and what have you done with Thomas Sowell?
Now we have no principles? Is this the latest meme from the left? I don’t think they’ll get away with that one.
Whoever you are, you’d better stop trying.
True that. With his follow up he at least put blame where it belongs. :)
It is true that in this 2nd article, Sowell takes the establishment GOP to task a little bit. But it is also true that he again labels Cruz as self serving.
Apparently, Sowell has it in for Cruz. Part I warned of Obama's Hitler trajectory, but that provided the backdrop for an attack on Cruz.
Sowell must think that the GOP-E will not take the nation in a big government direction. If so, he is wrong. They might as well be liberals, and many of them already are.
True my FRiend, he still labels Ted Cruz as self serving and I personally think he’s wrong in that.
Instead of attacking those Republicans, who do not have the guts or sense to understand that some of their financial backers are off on an irrational or cowardly tangent, we should focus on those who mislead the weak-spirited among us.
This avoids the one valid point that Dr. Sowell comes back to.
Put another way: Could we be any worse off if the $300,000,000, the less than principled Karl Rove raised in 2012, had simply remained in the donors' pockets? Any worse off?
Todays Drudgereport headline
ITs been shutdown since October and only Drudge is reporting it.
So Mr. Sowell get off it, Cruz is the only one doing the people’s work.
Did Cruz kill Sowell’s cats?
What is Your problem Thom?
Sowell must have read all the comments and posts about his first part yesterday and decided to try and backtrack a bit.
I think he’s wrong about Senator Cruz.
I think Ted Cruz is made from the same stuff as our Founders and that they are very proud of him.
Not in all cases. Some are so willing to give a reach across to the Democrats that it might be better to let the Dems have the seat for six years and then get it back. I'm looking at your McCain and Graham. Fortunately in Graham's case I think we'll still keep the seat if he can be knocked out in the primary or runoff.
He’s got to work on that ‘unjustified’ claim
Out of nowhere
Not to mention that Cruz is a master of justifiable causes Its in his DNA
Saw a van yesterday brand new, clean, all over the windows was written things of this nature such as republicans beware
And this: ‘Cruz is not going away’
If the GOP senate leaders liked Cruz, I would probably like Cruz less.
Dr. Sowell, like so many conservative intellectuals, has accepted the idea that opposition to the RINO credo of perpetual losses, is merely a foolish exercise in a shameful, egocentric behavior.
The concept of a principled warrior for Liberty to Dr. Sowell and other Republican Intellectuals, vanished as a lost cause long, long ago.
They define themselves as being grounded in the practical reality of always losing to the Federal Politicians in “both” political parties who find no limit to the expansion of the US Federal Government.
Thus, any challenge to their basic assumption of continuous financial and political Conservative failure must be put down as soon as possible.
Senator Cruz understands the value of attacking the enemy at multiple points of weakness.
RINO politicians, consultants, strategists, advisors, donors, volunteers, supporters and RINO voters do not understand this, as they tend to focus on one or two points of attack for the entire election campaign.
In this manner, the RINOs ignore the day to day fluctuations of opponent revealed weaknesses, and plod on to their usual, and very comforting defeat.
For example, in 2008 Loser Emeritus Wacko Birds McCain publicly admonished those who questioned the validity of then Senator Obamas sealed birth certificate, thus assuring McCain of another very successful RINO-Style Defeat.
Another example is when RINO Speaker Boehner just last week chose to cave in to his overriding personal phobia of being bad-mouthed by the Left Stream Media, and took off the House calendar the necessary House Debate on the size of the National Poverty Debt Limit, thus guaranteeing the Conservative Democrat and Republican voters will from then on know that RINOs really stand for unlimited Federal Spending.
BTW, notice how many times RINO Rove says: Republicans should let that go and concentrate on this one point.
Senators Cruz, Lee and sometimes Rand Paul are wise enough to attack on many fronts, and the double down whenever a weakness is detected.
RINOs have refused to learn that the first rule in Federal Politics is to attack, Attack, ATTACK!
The second rule in Federal Politics is to savagely attack ALL weaknesses as they are revealed.
The third rule of Federal Politics is to accept, without question, that ALL FEDERAL POLITICS IS NATIONAL.
Newt, for a brief moment in time, used that wisdom to construct his very successful National Contract with America.
Newts wisdom soon quickly rejected by the rank and file RINO failure leadership.
No political Wing of any political party has ever enjoyed losing as much as the now obsolete, failed RINO Wing of the Republican Party.
House Member elected, House Sobber Boehner even lends a Soap Opera touch to many RINO cave in losses by sobbing frequently.
Democrats and all RINOs still believe the Tipsy ONeal failed con slogan which states: All politics is local.
Democrats and RINOs have used this failed slogan with great success to expand the number of non-working, non-taxpayers on their ballooning Welfare Plantation, paid for by borrowing to increase the National Poverty Debt.
In summary, RINOs belong in the Museum of Failed Politicians, (MOFP), and not on the taxpayers payroll.
Make 2014 the year of the extinct Federal RINO!
If there is a Republican win in November, Cruz's clear identification and articulation of principles underlying our Constitution, and the "spirit of 1776" which he displayed in putting them out there, will be a major cause of that victory!
Make no mistake, the droll, unimaginative, compromising spirit of the "old order" among Republicans in both the House and Senate will not convince Americans, especially young Americans, that the Republican Party will do anything different than what it has been doing.
We now need men of courage, not "politicians," but statesmen who love liberty and will speak out on its behalf, so that future generations may look back and see that in the Year 2014, someone stood up to protect the Constitution, not their own and their Party's popularity!
One signer of the Declaration of Independence spoke eloquently about his observations of his fellow signers of that remarkable document of freedom.
|Ellery joined the Whig party, and became active in politics. He had inherited some money from his father, and he took this opportunity to study law. His name appears as a member of the General Assembly in the year of the Stamp Act repeal. He is now a leading member of the Sons of Liberty in Newport. The year is 1766. He has been a widower with six children for two years. On June 28, 1767, he marries for the second time. His second wife is a distant cousin, Abigail Carey, with whom he has ten children.|
When the delegates to the Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia in March 1776, Samuel Ward, Ellery's old friend, died of smallpox. Ellery was the choice to succeed him. As the signers gathered to affix their signatures to the Declaration, it was said that Ellery stood where he could watch their expressions. Of the 56 signers, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war, five were captured, brutally treated and imprisoned, several lost wives and sons, one lost his thirteen children, two wives were brutally treated, and twelve had their homes burned. William Ellery's property was burned while the British occupied Newport. He did, however, return after the war, and apparently recovered financially. He lived nearly 93 years, dying on February 15, 1820. He was interred in the Coggeshall Cemetery at the corner of Victoria and Coggeshall Avenue in Newport. Later, he was given a tomb in the Common Burying Ground on Farewell Street.
Ellery is quoted elsewhere concerning the bravery he observed on the face of every single man who signed that revolutionary document, knowing that each might die for the action he was taking on behalf of liberty.
I believe you’re right. It’s one thing to have bipartisanship and work together for the good of the country but as far as some RINOs go bipartisanship is a one way RAT road.
Hopefully Linda is axed in the primary and we keep the seat.
I agree. Senator Cruz was entirely “justified.”
Furthermore, he gave the nation a worthy Contstitutional “schooling” that night.
Thanks, very good post. We need many more with the courage of those men and Ted Cruz.
There is simply no way to tell if a politician is self-serving or trying to serve a noble purpose. Having been burned by many before, I’d lean toward self serving.
However, I really don’t care what motivates a politician so long as they are attempting to support the kind of government I desire.
So, it is irrelevant whether Cruz is self-serving.
I see your point and it’s a good one.
Sowell’s “problem” can be found in this early quote from his article:
” - - - At this crucial juncture in the history of America, internal battles within the only party that can turn things around are the last thing Americans need. - - - . “
The fact that Sowell placed this statement early in his article reveals that this is one of his key assumptions that he will build on in the rest of his article.
Sowell thus comes across as one who will not support change, no matter how important that change is to the survival of our Republic.
Sowell is a Loyalist, a supporter of the Status Quo, and a great, great anchor to the obsolete RINO Wing of the Republican Party.
To Sowell and the other RINO intellectuals I say: “BRING IT !”
Ted Cruz Ping!
If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!
Taken as a pair, the two articles together are less damning of Cruz, Lee and others of his subset than the part one was standing alone.
Was Cruz by taking principled stands the creator of the division or was Republican leadership trying to marginalize conservative wing members after the 2010 bi-elections the start of the division?
Who can say? But with this second part, the old line Republicans are reminded that they are just as much responsible for the division and lack of effectiveness as the conservative faction with Cruz as their most visible activist.
Going back to Sowell’s point in the first article can now be done. Is the opposition divided, as in his example of division prior to the totalitarian Hitler moving his toe-hold of 32% and a place in the power structure into full control of power? Are we dithering about direction and allowing the defeat of our system of government because of division?
The answer is of course yes. Who has to move most to unify?
But movement for unity is the obvious need and it must happen prior to the start of the election cycle and both sides must do it.
Sowell is our Burke, our Kirk, and our Hayek. We must declare as Thatcher did, refering to Hayek, and slam Sowell’s words down on the podium and say as she said, “This is what we believe.”
Failed premise right there.
Cruz IS justified in a big way. The current state of affairs and recent events completely withstanding demonstrate the absolute failure, nay, non existence, of any type of effective leadership or plan of action of and by the GOP, that they are complicit with the sad state of affairs.
If every member of the GOP had the same fighting spirit, fearless political will and conservative principles as Ted Cruz they could really turn this unconstitutional Fedzilla monster away and halt this lawless administration in their tracks.
It's called accountability and the checks are missing and the balances went with it.
The business as usual crowd is why the GOP is FUBAR and Sowell clearly one of them.
Not one of us as portrayed.
He let the mask slip off yesterday and even today fumbled with it.
Sowell’s got in in for Cruz for some reason.
It’s so odd, because Sowell is saying something so unlike himself, something like “Cruz would be better off playing politics than dealing with facts.”
TRUTH also benefitted from Cruz’ play to force senators to vote on the record. We have been sick to death of political farce long before Ted started exposing it. Bob
Yes, does Dr. Sowell believe that America benefits when frauds can get away with duping the public? Why does he think that our system is nearing collapse? It’s because there is no counter-balance to the political class. Six more Lindsey Grahams would serve to do nothing but continue America’s steep decline. Bob
Yep... Senator Cruz forced those weasels out in the open!
Agreed. Dr. Sowell needs to hang out with more normal Americans. We have our Pa. Leadership conference in April, and it should be interesting. Plenty of GOP-E’ers on hand. Bob
Maybe Dr Sowell took a lot of heat from yesterday’s column/Part I. He’s come around, somewhat, with Part II.
Maybe he’ll write a Part III and be back on the right track, and back to his self :)
You almost got it right.
There is NO LOGICAL DIFFERENCE between promoting a course that you think is right and, when you are the perceived leader of that cause, trying to advance your own position in that cause.
They are indistinguishable.
That is why it’s a meaningless accusation.
You might criticize grandiosity, hubris, boastfulness, vanity, pomposity, but I haven’t seen Cruz show any of those negative characteristics.
Are you suggesting that when Obama becomes a dictator that we can all blame the divisive Ted Cruz and the Tea Party?
Well he already is a dictator and so far Ted Cruz (and maybe Mike Lee) is the only politician I have seen who has dared to point that fact out to the American Public. Everbody else seems to have their heads buried in the sand hoping that Obama will just go away.
I see that Sowell was accusing the Republican estabishment of having no principle, not the Tea Party. Sorry. I misread that the first time. I went back and reread because you all were saying it was a better piece than the last one, so I realized I must have misread.
He has written these artfully as a pair. He has the main line thinking from part one that the great conservative Sowell has come to their aid. In part two, he damns them with the subtitle to Part II stating, “GOP Leaders ignore his appeal at GOP’s own peril.”
Sowell is nothing if not briliant and a tremendous communicator. He is showing the peril of the division and to get the old guard’s absolute and full attention, he ran part one first which showed the new turk’s shortcomings and discribed the situation and peril of the division.
Now, with the old gaurds avid attention, he damns them for ineffectiveness in the first place showing the need for Cruz and others of that faction’s actions.
In two parts, he gets their absolute and full attention to the weakness of the division and demands, by citing Hitler, that it has to be done without fail.
He is telling all of us on the right/conservative side of the spectrum to JOIN OR DIE.
He may have backtracked a bit, but his use of the words "however unjustified" suggest that he intends to give no quarter to Ted Cruz in his war against the establishment.
It is clear that Sowell would like the GOP to be more like Ted Cruz but he doesn't want anyone to actually be like Ted Cruz. Such incongruity I have never seen from Sowell.
I absolutely fail to see his point in these two columns. Maybe he had a brain fart yesterday, but today he seems to double down while at the same time making a vain attempt at backtracking. I expect this kind of double talk from politicians, but Thomas Sowell is supposed to be a conservative philosopher.
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
If that's what he's saying he's wasting his breath. The GOP-E is a liberal, cronyist, big government loving aristocracy.
And, if that's what he's saying, then why has he attacked Ted Cruz in both articles?
The effects of human wickedness are written on the page of history in characters of blood: but the impression soon fades away; so more blood must be shed to renew it.
~Augustus William Hare and Julius Charles Hare, Guesses at Truth, by Two Brothers, 1827
[I]t was that there are no simple lessons in history, that it is human nature that repeats itself, not history.
But his part II makes no sense at all. He seems to have it in for Cruz for taking a principled stand but then criticizes the GOP for not taking a principled stand.
He thinks he can have it both ways.
He is being excoriated over this second part just as he was the first part. I don't know if he is just going to drop the subject, or if we will see some more backtracking tomorrow in Part III followed by Part IV and Part V.
I am sorely disappointed in Mr. Sowell's careless articles over the last 2 days. Whatever point he was trying to make has been lost in the fog of the contradictory statements he has made in both articles.