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.
It’s 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 ... "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 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.
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.