Skip to comments.Cruz Up Close: Texas Senator Nabs Claremont’s ‘Statesmanship Award’ [SNARKY ALERT]
Posted on 03/17/2014 7:32:34 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
It’s hard to believe but Ted Cruz and Barack Obama do have one thing in common. Both have now won awards more for their potential than for their achievements. In Obama’s case, it was the Nobel Peace Prize, an award given to the likes of Yasser Arafat for bringing “peace to the Middle East” and, yes, Al Gore for his maunderings about the weather. In Cruz’s case, it was the Claremont Institute’s Statesmanship Award, previously given to the likes of Milton Friedman and Margaret Thatcher.
I leave it to you to decide which is the greater honor, but I was in attendance Saturday night at Claremont’s annual Churchill dinner at the Beverly Wilshire to see Cruz receive his award and, more importantly, deliver a speech. I was anxious to go because the Texas senator is one of the men of the Republican hour and a darling of the militant wing of the party. He is also quite clearly a bright fellow, a cum laude graduate of Princeton where he was a national debating champion, then a magnum cum laude grad of Harvard Law where he was called “off-the-charts brilliant” by none other than Alan Dershowitz, who, to my knowledge, has never said quite the same thing about Obama. From there the future Texas senator went on to clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist.
Perhaps even more impressive about Cruz is that he was already studying such free-market economists as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Frederic Bastiat and Ludwig Mises in high school. Not too many of us could say that. But if we had, I suspect this country would be a lot different.
My problem with the Texas senator, as I have written previously, has been one of tactics, not ideology. I was put off, as were a significant portion of the electorate, if we can believe the polls, by his effort to shut down the government over Obamacare, even though that same electorate disdained Obama’s absurd healthcare legislation — or should I say prevarication? Nevertheless, for a moment, the Republican brand was damaged. I was worried that it might be fatal. I was dead wrong.
I wanted to hear Cruz speak at the Churchill dinner to see if I was dead wrong about him as well. I think I probably was. The man delivered a fine speech. He was personable. He was funny. (He made father-in-law jokes rather than mother-in-law jokes.) He hit his ideological marks and he also spent time defending his tactical position.
He quoted Lady Thatcher in his defense when she famously said, “First you win the argument, then you win the vote.” So true, and just the opposite of our current president whose “argument” was the puerile and non-existent “hope and change,” really no argument at all, before he won the vote — and look what that has done to our country. Liberals in general don’t make arguments (largely because they don’t have any). They appeal to emotion.
Of course, conservatives and libertarians must appeal to emotion as well — to some degree at least — if they intend to win elections. I was concerned Cruz would not be able to do that. I am much less concerned now.
Does that mean I am signing up on the Cruz for President train? No. It’s way too early for that and, if the last go-round is any indication, I’m going to change my mind about twenty-five times anyway. The only train I will sign up for is getting a Republican in the White House, virtually any Republican. I have to admit it. I’m desperate.
Before I stop, I’d like to tip my hat to the Claremont Institute. For those of you who don’t know it, it’s doing great work. You should educate yourself. And you should read its Claremont Review of Books. It’s sort of the non-pharmaceutical antidote to the New York Review of Books and, on occasion at least, considerably wittier.
Stopped reading this trash after this sentence. Pure editorial b.s. liberal spin.
Its hard to believe but Ted Cruz and Barack Obama do have one thing in common.
One thing? Huh. They are practically twins.
Militant. Blech. By what definition
It would appear that you are very confused and wrong about a lot of things, Roger Simon.
Second ... he compares the Nobel 'Peace' prize with the Claremont Institute's Statesmanship Award?! And by inference, Yasser Arafat and algore with Milton Friedman and Margaret Thatcher?! WTF?!
And lastly, he extols the virtues of the Claremont Institute ... "Id like to tip my hat to the Claremont Institute. For those of you who dont know it, its doing great work. You should educate yourself." ... And yet, he won't accept their great work in bestowing their award upon Senator Ted Cruz?
My advice to you Mr. Simon is to let go of your Establishment biases and join the Claremont Institute and true conservatives by jumping aboard the Cruz Missile bandwagon.
One thing? Huh. They are practically twins.
Srsly?! Please illuminate us in what ways Ted Cruz and BH0 are 'twins'.
Don’t feed the trolls. Just look at his dream ticket, says all you need to know.
Both outstanding speaker that don’t have a single result.
They both are foreign born
Haha! IMHO, if it wasn't for feckless 'leadership' in Senator Cruz' own party, he would have plenty of "results" for us all to cheer.
And ... regarding "results", please enumerate for the thread the many accomplishments of the loser from the 2012 GOP POTUS primary ....
'Yes, I supported Senator Specter ... what of it?
How many Supreme Court cases did Obama argue...and win?
The total for Cruz is thirteen.
He is a man of singular accomplishment in his chosen field: Constitutional Law.
Obama was a community organizer. How do you find them comparable in any way?
Cruz could not convince anybody of his views or bills. Not one thing has he been able to get passed. He is a failure at the highest degree. Santorum has had many bills passed while he was in the Senate. Santorum is 100 times the man that is “cruz”. Cruz has absolutely no leadership skills.
Who cares how many Supreme Courts cases he won. Perhaps that is what he should do if he is so good at it. He certainly sucks as a Senator which is proven by absolutely not a thing done. If he was a leader, he would be able to have the Senators both Republicans AND Democrats vote his way. As it is, he talks but always ends up as a dud.
I wouldn’t expect to hear such a statement from anyone on this site.
You’re not going to win any converts this way.
I’d love to be on this ping list, but I fear that keeping up with it might be too much for me.
Why it is the truth.
No, it’s not the truth. It’s your opinion.
I hear you.
Let me know if you want on for sure.
Thanks, SCP, and thanks for posting these threads.
Why should we believe that he is?
The Cruz Derangement Trolls do a serious dis-service to FR, imo.
"He quoted Lady Thatcher in his defense when she famously said, First you win the argument, then you win the vote. So true, and just the opposite of our current president whose argument was the puerile and non-existent hope and change, really no argument at all, before he won the vote and look what that has done to our country. Liberals in general dont make arguments (largely because they dont have any). They appeal to emotion."
Not exactly. Obama likes to say pretty sounding words (which someone else writes and he reads) that mean nothing.
Cruz has thought out content based on classic ideas and legal reasoning.
Cruz has a top academic record that is open for inspection. His history is clearly documented. The O_tard has any mention of his past under lock and key, and clearly has a totally conjured history.
Cruz served as a clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
Cruz has argued before the Supreme Court nine times, more than any practicing lawyer in Texas or any current member of Congress.
On the other hand, Obozo is known for voting "present" and being the head of the Harvard Law Review, but never published anything?? AND HE LIES 24/7!!
Give me a break!
The Claremont Institute Book Review is a not to be missed publication.
okay nappy, now you have moved straight into the category of being just an abject idiot. Someone earlier called you a troll,and in a way, you are.
Cruz has convinced a lot of people to do a lot of things. Passing bills is not a show of leadership necessarily. Besides, Santorum served in a Republican Senate before he ran his “look I can be a good Democrat too” campaign and got shellacked in his last effort.
But what is amusing is that you are mathematcially challenged, and that’s scary because I think your occupation is that of some kind of government bean counter with a guaranteed pension and cushy retirement regardless of how inept you are. You compared Newt’s troubles to those of Santorum, with no regard for how much longer Newt has been in public life, and you have compared Cruz to Santorum with no regard for how much longer Rickie Sweater has been in office than Cruz.
You have no logical abilities that I have ever been able to discern.
naps is a blithering government employee jackass time to disregard him.
The answer to your question is in my original post. The very next sentence in fact. It's just my opinion, of course.
That would seem to be to be the very definition of politics. Cruz hasn't had a chance to show any ability in foreign affairs, and if you accept the definition of statesman as "one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies" then he hasn't shown much of a flair for that either. And why? Because he won't compromise his positions to get along with the rest of the Senate.
statesman (ˈsteɪtsmən)I stand by my original answer...
n , pl -men
1. a political leader whose wisdom, integrity, etc, win great respect
Seems to me the ability to convince skeptics that you are correct in your point of view is the essence of statesmanship.
Yes, it’s unfortunate.
Exactly! I trust the Claremont Institute and their definition of "Statesman" ....
I confess that Santorum is not my cup of tea.
Seeing Shuck Choomer just makes my skin crawl...
True. But seeing McQueeg and Graham yucking it up with him and Gillibrand is truly repulsive. Ted Cruz looks ready to barf.
I am not a bean counter. However, if that is what you believe then you are more naive then I am about Cruz (as you feel).
C’mon, Naps. You’re better than that.
okay, some sort of procurment or other bureaucratic job jockeying a desk ..if I recall.
Ok. I will just tell you because I know you know or knew at one time. I work at the Naval Academy. I hardly call that bean counting or other pentagon type job. However, it is part of the scary federal government so I will give you credit for saying I suck because I can’t get a real job as some of you have mentioned before (not you specifically).
I know it’s at the naval academy ..and I would never say whether or not it is a real job or not .all branches of the military and the academies have what we would call real jobs but as government entities, they have bloated bureaucracies as well. I would never assume you were one or the other.
But you do have a blind spot to the free enterprise system ..as many in the military, law enforcement field, etc, seem to. That you have demonstated on many occaisions, which is why some folks do say you could not get a real job.
But you do have a blind spot to the free enterprise system ..as many in the military, law enforcement field, etc, seem to.
Kinda true, but not sure why. I guess when you go from the military to the federal government with over 26 years combined and very little private employment, it just makes you protect the government. My biggest problem with government especially federal is that they combine everything into one. I think if we could keep the military and even pentagon separately, we could be better off. I do agree that some of the military and Pentagon could be cut in areas and they are working on it for sure. The next ten years we will see major cuts in the military and Pentagon. However most other federal agencies will be spared.