Category Archives: Is There Anything Ted Cruz Doesn’t Lie About?

Is There Anything Ted Cruz Doesn’t Lie About (cont.)?

Leave a reply

Sen. Ted Cruz (TP-Texas) has determined that the Senate should refuse to engage in its Constitutional role in confirming a nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia.  In support of this obstructionism, the Tea Party stalwart declared that the decision should be left for the next president. “We have 80 years of precedent of not confirming Supreme Court Justices in an election year.”  Interesting, but as usual completely false.

President Ronald Reagan nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to a vacant Supreme Court seat in November of 1987. Kennedy’s nomination received bipartisan support and he was confirmed in a 97-0 vote by the Senate in February 1988.   Red and others (but apparently not the Junior Senator from Texas and self-styled always smartest man in the room) remember that 1988 was an election year and that February of 1988 was less than a year before Reagan left office.  One wonders what Ronnie would think of bald-faced liar like Cruz.

And since Cruz fancies himself as an originalist and or strict constructionist, it might be interesting to look back at other Supreme Court justices who were confirmed in election years.

Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth – appointed by Washington – confirmed March 4, 1796

Justice Samuel Chase – appointed by Washington – confirmed January 26, 1796

Justice Alfred Moore – appointed by Adams – confirmed April 21, 1800

Justice William Johnson – appointed by Jefferson – confirmed May 7, 1804

Justice Roger Taney – appointed by Jackson – confirmed March 15, 1836

Justice Philip P. Barbour – appointed by Jackson – confirmed March 15, 1836

Justice Lucius Lamar – appointed by Cleveland – confirmed January 15, 1888

Chief Justice Melville Fuller – appointed by Cleveland – confirmed July 20, 1888

Justice George Shiras – appointed by Harrison – confirmed July 26, 1892

Justice Mahlon Pitney – appointed by Taft – confirmed March 13, 1912

Justice Louis Brandeis – appointed by Wilson – confirmed Jun 1, 1916

Justice John Clarke – appointed by Wilson – confirmed July 24, 1916

Justice Benjamin Cardozo – appointed by Roosevelt – confirmed March 1, 1932

Justice Frank Murphy – appointed by Roosevelt – confirmed January 16, 1940

It appears that Sen. Cruz and his ilk have little or no appreciation for the considerable precedent of the Senate actually doing its job and putting aside election year politics to act on Supreme Court nominations. But what else would you expect?

 

 

 

Is There Anything Ted Cruz Doesn’t Lie About (cont.)?

Leave a reply

Sen. Ted Cruz (TP-Texas) has reached a new low in his latest mass mailing.  The Cruz mailing looks like it is on his official Senate stationery and on the front states there is a “Check Enclosed.”   The check turns out to be a phony and not a check for the recipient.  Rather, it is a supposed matching contribution check that will go to the Cruz campaign if the voter makes a contribution to the Cruz campaign.

The mailer may violate  a 2015 Texas law requiring solicitations with a fake check to have “clearly and conspicuously printed in at least 18-point type: ‘SPECIMEN-NON-NEGOTIABLE.'”  Progress Texas has filed a complaint with the Texas attorney general’s office claiming a violation of that law.

“This is the kind of mail my legislation was trying to prevent,” said state Rep. Gene Wu (D). “It certainly breaks the spirit of the law, and I agree that the Texas’ Consumer Protection Division should look into whether or not it breaks the letter of the law, as well. Texas consumers should not be tricked into sending anyone their money, especially to elected officials.”

But what does the law matter when your campaign is a crusade to elect the only man capable of saving our nation and indeed humanity from the abyss.   The super-narcissist Cruz clearly does not think the law applies to him.

Image from the Huffington Post.

Is There Anything Ted Cruz Doesn’t Lie About (cont.)?

Leave a reply

Sen. Ted Cruz (TP-Texas) tried to trick potential Ben Carson caucus goers into supporting him on Monday night by falsely claiming that Carson was dropping out of the race.  After it was reported that Carson was going home to Florida on Monday night, Cruz and his campaign quickly tried to create the impression that Carson was ending his campaign.

Just as the caucuses were beginning to meet at 7 p.m., the official Ted Cruz mobile app sent a message to some Iowans.

“CNN is reporting that Ben Carson will stop campaigning after Iowa.  Make sure to tell all of your peers at the caucus supporting Carson that they should coalesce around the true conservative who will be in the race for the long haul: TED CRUZ!”

Carson denied that he was quitting, but at least some damage may have already been done.   Numerous caucus attendees have reported that Cruz supporters attempted  to sway Carson voters by announcing that Carson would be dropping out of the race.

For his part, Carson has described Cruz’s tactics as “dirty tricks” and has called on Cruz to fire anyone involved in the “shenanigans.”  That seems unlikely as Ted is probably unwilling to fire himself.  “If Ted Cruz doesn’t know about this, then he clearly needs to very quickly get rid of some people in his organization,” Carson said. “And if he does know about it, isn’t this the exact kind of thing the American people are tired of?”

Is there Anything Ted Cruz Doesn’t Lie About (cont.)?

Leave a reply

Sen. Ted Cruz (TP-Texas) is turning to desperate measures to win in Iowa.  The junior Senator from Texas is apparently afraid his campaign is in serious danger of implosion without a bravo showing in the Hawkeye State.  The smell of desperation was apparent when the Tea Party hero’s campaign sent out the following mailer to Iowa voters.

You are receiving this election notice because of low expected voter turnout in your area. Your individual voting history as well as your neighbors’ are public record. Their scores are published below, and many of them will see your score as well. CAUCUS ON MONDAY TO IMPROVE YOUR SCORE and please encourage your neighbors to caucus as well. A follow-up notice may be issued following Monday’s caucuses.

If that weren’t misleading enough, the mailer also included a chart with the name of the voter and his or her neighbors and their voting “grade” and “score.”

Voter registration and voter history records are public records distributed by the Iowa Secretary of State and/or county election clerks. This data is not available for use for commercial purposes – use is limited by law. Scores reflect participation in recent elections. 

This is wrong on so many levels.  First, it was specifically designed to look like an official government document.  This raised the ire of Iowa Secretary of State, Paul Pate, who issued his rejoinder.

 Today I was shown a piece of literature from the Cruz for President campaign that misrepresents the role of my office, and worse, misrepresents Iowa election law. Accusing citizens of Iowa of a “voting violation” based on Iowa Caucus participation, or lack thereof, is false representation of an official act. There is no such thing as an election violation related to frequency of voting. Any insinuation or statement to the contrary is wrong and I believe it is not in keeping in the spirit of the Iowa Caucuses.

And if that weren’t enough, Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker has done some more investigation and it appears that the voting scores given to the targeted voter and his or her neighbors were simply made up by Cruz staffers.

After looking at several mailers posted online, I was more curious about how the Cruz campaign came up with its scores. On all the mailers I saw, every voter listed had only one of three possible scores: fifty-five per cent, sixty-five per cent, or seventy-five per cent, which translate to F, D, and C grades, respectively. Iowans take voting pretty seriously. Why was it that nobody had a higher grade?

In Iowa, although voter-registration information is free and available to the public, voter history is not. That information is maintained by the secretary of state, who licenses it to campaigns, super PACs, polling firms, and any other entity that might want it. So was the Cruz campaign accurately portraying the voter histories of Iowans? Or did it simply make up the numbers?

It’s Ted Cruz for crying out loud!  Of course he made it up.  That’s what he does.

Image from bloviatingzeppelin.net.

Is there Anything Ted Cruz Doesn’t Lie About(cont.)?

Leave a reply

“You know who one of those millions of Americans who’s lost their health care because of Obamacare? That would be me. I don’t have health care right now. I had purchased an individual policy and Blue Cross Blue Shield canceled all their individual policies in the state of Texas effective December 31st. So our health care got canceled.”     Sen. Ted Cruz (TP-Texas).

A very moving story, that is if it wasn’t completely fabricated. The whole tale smelled from the beginning.  You don’t lose your health care with a single letter.  Moreover, if true, then Cruz is a moron for not securing another plan from the many choices.  More importantly, it was pure bullshit as a part of Cruz’s agenda to destroy the American healthcare system.   The Cruz campaign had to quickly fess up and throw Ted’s insurance broker under the bus.  Cruz was automatically enrolled in another plan by his provider.  Since the Affordable Care Act is actually working, Cruz has to lie and make up stuff to paint a picture of failure.

Is There Anything Ted Cruz Doesn’t Lie About?

3 Replies

Sen. Ted Cruz (TP-Texas) is now claiming that the “Washington Establishment” has determined Marco Rubio “can’t win this race” and consequently is “rushing over to support Donald Trump.” While campaigning in New Hampshire, Cruz laid down the following whopper:

“We’re seeing the Washington establishment abandoning Marco Rubio and unifying behind Donald Trump. And we’re seeing conservatives coming together and unifying behind our campaign. And if conservatives unite, we win.”

Exactly who is the “Washington Establishment” is anybody’s fair guess, but in Cruz’s opinion it seems to be anyone who doesn’t support him.  It seems to Red, however, that the WE is likely composed of current and former office holders that serve or served in the halls of Congress and elsewhere in good ol’ DC.

So let’s look at exactly how many current or former members of Congress have endorsed Donald Trump.   Fortunately for Red, he doesn’t have to look too far because the list is pretty damn short.  In fact, it’s not even a list because all of one – count him – one former Congressman, Virgil Short (VA) has endorsed Trump.  To give Ted the benefit of the doubt Red will also include one Jeff Lord, former White House associate political director for Reagan in 1987–88.  While Red is sure that Jeff is a great guy, Red doubts that Mr. Lord is swinging a big dick or a whole lot of votes towards the Donald.

And then we turn to Mr. Anti-Establishment himself.  How many current of former members of Congress has TC snared?  Drum roll please – 20 – including one former Senator!  Plus, Cruz has also snagged the endorsements of 7 former members of the Republican National Committee.  Curious how Mr. Cruz has failed to obtain the endorsement of a single one of his colleagues in the Senate, isn’t it?

But in Red’s opinion, the endorsement game is fought and won on the crazy celebrity battlefront.  Here, Trump is clearly coming out ahead with endorsements of such heavyweights as Mike Tyson (pun intended), Tia Tequila, Gary Busey, Dennis Rodman, Hulk Hogan, Ted Nugent, Lou “the Hulk” Ferrigno, and Wayne Newton.  Danke Schoen.

Poor Ted just can’t compete here, and thus is reduced to whining about the Washington Establishment.  What else can he do with a celebrity endorsement roster that features lightweights like Phil Robertson, James Woods and R. Lee Ermey?

Brilliant Attorney Ted Cruz Can’t Figure Out How to Follow the Law

Leave a reply

Multiple outlets are reporting that Sen. Ted Cruz (TP-Texas) failed to report as much as $500,000 in loans from Goldman Sachs that may have been used to help finance his longshot  2012 Senate campaign.  Cruz is downplaying this as an “inadvertent” filing error, but part of his Senate campaign was premised on his anti-Wall Street rhetoric and the fact that he was getting preferential loans from a Wall Street giant (that also employed his wife) would not have fit well into that narrative.  Cruz explains one of the loans as a “standard margin loan” that you would have with any brokerage account.  Red calls BS on that one.  There is nothing “standard” about margin loans and they are the easiest way for the average investor to get in trouble and rack up big losses.  Red sees potential trouble for the high-flying Tea Party darling in the weeks running up to Iowa.  Ted’s “nothing to see here, move along” explanation doesn’t pass the smell test and how did the oh-so-brilliant attorney from Texas not manage to follow disclosure laws which are pretty damn clear on their face.  Isn’t interpreting law supposed to be his strong suit?