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.
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.
SCP
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.
Thanks SoConPubbie.
"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."
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.
From Dictionary.com
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.
Nice pic.
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.
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.