Needs no explanation.
Image from NPR.
The End Times are Near
1 Reply
Tag Archives: Tea Party
Ted Cruz Doesn’t Debate
Sen. Ted Cruz (TP-Texas) has mastered the art of the non-debate. Here are the 10 basic rules:
- Never actually answer a question, it’s a sign of weakness.
- Never admit you made a mistake – other than a clerical error.
- Have a bag full of ready-to-deliver snarky comebacks and veiled insults.
- Talk over your opponents during their time.
- Attack the media whenever possible – especially when they are reporting truthfully about you.
- Perfect a disgusted, dismayed look that says – I can’t believe they aren’t smart enough to take everything I say for the gospel truth.
- Use that finger.
- Begin response with vicious attack on questioner – then segue to warm and meaningless family anecdote.
- When disgusted, dismayed look doesn’t work – turn to icy stare.
- Never actually answer a question.
Put Abbott to Work on Something Useful
Gov. Greg Abbott’s plan to amend the holy crap out of the U.S. Constitution looks to be a non-starter judged solely by the complete lack of buzz surrounding his “big” announcement. Red saw Megyn Kelly giving him what-for on her show a few nights ago, but other than that – cue the crickets. So instead of directing so much of his energy towards not actually running the state he was electing to govern (hence the title “governor”), Tom Herman of the Austin American-Statesman suggests that Abbott turn his attention to a document that actually could use some revising – namely, the bloated, turgid and all too frequently amended Texas Constitution.
Abbott is correct on another front: There indeed is a Constitution overdue for a major overhaul. It’s our very own semi-beloved Texas Constitution, a 90,000-word, 385-section, 491-amendment mélange of a mess of a pastiche of a patchwork of a guiding document.
The last real run at reworking the Texas Constitution — and it turned out to be a run that barely got beyond the starting line — was in 1999 when then-state Sen. Bill Ratliff, R-Mount Pleasant, and Rep. Rob Junell, D-San Angelo, tried it.
As the 1999 legislative session began, Ratliff and Junell noted a new millennium was approaching and “we must exercise foresight to prepare this state and its citizens for the challenges of the next century.”
Brilliant Attorney Ted Cruz Can’t Figure Out How to Follow the Law
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?
All Quiet on the Constitutional Front?
In the wake of Gov. Greg Abbott’s call to fundamentally alter the structure of our country’s government, the Texas Tribune speculates about the almost total lack of support yet forthcoming from other Tea Party stalwarts such as Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. Even Sen. “Krazy” Konni Burton (TP- Colleyville) – never one to wander too far from the lunatic fringe – is maintaining radio silence on Abbott’s plan. It seems as though the Tea Party is hesitant to get behind supporting a constitutional convention that might spiral out of control.
Someone was nice enough to leave a copy of “Restoring the Rule of Law With States Leading the Way” by Gov. Greg Abbott on Red’s desk. Red has yet to work his way through the 92 page tome complete with 353 endnotes. When he does, you will be hearing more. But, there are two things that immediately strike Red about Our Poor Idiot Governor’s proposal:
First, why is OPIG so reluctant to do the job he was actually elected to do? He seems to have little or no interest in attempting to run Texas. OPIG spends most of his time grandstanding, filing absurd lawsuits, and kowtowing to the TP base that elected him. Exactly how much of the state’s time and money was wasted on this non-starter of a “plan?” Will someone send an open records request?
Second, if by some unf0rtunate happenstance, OPIG’s 9 constitutional amendments were to pass, then the seeds of a second American civil war will have been planted. The “indivisible” nation that we pledge allegiance to will be no more. We will once again be a collection of states – and we know how well that worked out last time. And if – under the new constitution (for that is what OPIG’s proposal would essentially create) – some of those states still can’t get their way, then what would be the natural option for these newly emboldened states? Cessation. The precedent is firmly established in blood, sweat and tears that unilateral cessation is not an option in our republic. The inevitable result of such an attempt would be rebellion and civil war. And if you thought the last one was messy . . . Red for one does not want to see this country torn asunder by fools like Abbott.
Abbott Proposes 9 – Count ’em – 9 Constitutional Amendments
Gov. Greg Abbott (TP-Texas) appears to have bigger things on his mind than simply running the state that he was elected to lead. Abbott has come out with a call for a constitutional convention and 9 proposed amendments to the Constitution that would fundamentally alter the federal-state system that has worked pretty darn well for almost 225 years. To put this in perspective there have been exactly 27 total amendments to the Constitution in more than two centuries and 10 of those were essentially done in a deal to get the Constitution ratified in the first place.
Abbott’s plan is mostly a direct attack on the U.S. Supreme Court – a profoundly c0nservative institution for the most part. Red finds this a bit strange from a former Justice of the Texas Supreme Court who had no problem interpreting (some would argue making) law to benefit and kowtow to the corporate masters and insurance company overlords that rule that Court. Abbott was more than willing to carry their water at the expense of the rights of ordinary Texans. Among his more foolish proposals are a balanced budget amendment – something that any economist worth his salt will tell you is a prescription for economic disaster.
Here are the short hand descriptions of what Abbott proposes:
- Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
- Require Congress to balance its budget.
- Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
- Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.
- Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
- Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
- Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
- Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
- Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.
Is it Just Red, or is Ted Cruz’s New Ad Just Plain Weird?
Sen. Ted Cruz (TP-Texas) launched a new TV ad in New Hampshire featuring hordes of well-dressed “accountants and lawyers” invading the US across what is supposed to be the Rio Grand and a border fence (notably, no one is seen actually scaling the fence). The focus of the ad is a claim that if the aforementioned hordes of accountants, lawyers and presumably other professionals were illegally crossing the border and driving down salaries for those occupations, then the swells would be up in arms about illegal immigration. First, this presupposes that illegal immigration has actually suppressed wages and implies that GOP policies which have helped to keep real incomes flat ever since Reagan’s inauguration have nothing to do with the problem. Second, it’s just plain weird.
Jonathan Stickland Liked the Weed – A Lot
Rep. and self-styled “former fetus” Jonathan Stickland (TP-Bedford) is trying to move past his on-line record indicating that he condoned marital rape and really liked smoking the marijuana so much so that he was curious about growing his own cannabis. Stickland, a Tea Party stalwart, now claims that he regrets the on-line trail of evidence he left and that yes, he smoked a few spleefs in his time, but he has repented and been forgiven. Red is the last person to cast stones – unless the target thereof is parading as some holier than thou state representative who is fair game for public comment. Red also believes in forgiveness – but not disremembering. The Trail Blazers Blog from the Dallas Morning News has more.
Notably, our former poor idiot governor Rick Perry has endorsed Bedford pastor Scott Fisher, who he once appointed to serve on two state commissions.
Was He Lying Then or is He Lying Now?
Sen. Ted Cruz (TP-Texas) is now facing his own problem on immigration and it does not stem from his sometimes questioned Constitutional qualification to hold the highest office in the land. Rather, Cruz’s position on a path to legalization for undocumented aliens has undergone a rather dramatic shift. When the so-called Gang of Eight bill was up in the Senate, Cruz offered an amendment that would have created a method for those currently in the US illegally to achieve permanent resident status – if not actual citizenship. Cruz now claims that it was a “poison pill” amendment intended to sabotage the bill. But what did Cruz say back then. Let’s here from the good Senator himself on the Senate floor – May 21, 2013.
They [undocumented aliens] would still be eligible for legal status and indeed, under the terms of the bill, they would be eligible for LPR [Lawful Permanent Resident] status as well so that they are out of the shadows, which the proponents of this bill repeatedly point to as their principal objective, to provide a legal status for those who are here illegally to be out of the shadows. This amendment would allow that to happen, but what it would do is remove the pathway to citizenship so that there are real consequences that respect the rule of law and that treat legal immigrants with the fairness and respect they deserve.
And a second point to those advocacy groups that are so passionately engaged. In my view if this committee rejects this amendment — and I think everyone here views it is quite likely this committee will choose to reject this amendment — in my view that decision will make it much much more likely that this entire bill will fail in the House of Representatives. I don’t want immigration reform to fail. I want immigration reform to pass. And so I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle if the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform that secures the borders, that improves legal immigration and that allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows, then we should look for areas of bipartisan agreement and compromise to come together. And this amendment, I believe if this amendment were to pass, the chances of this bill passing into law would increase dramatically. And so I would urge the committee to give it full consideration and to adopt the amendment.
Now I would suggest to all of those who passionately want to see this program fixed, that saying it’s all-or-nothing if there’s no path to citizenship, quote, there is no reform, tying immigration reform hostage to a path to citizenship is not a strategy to pass a bill. It’s a strategy to create partisan division. It’s a strategy that may well result in more political battles. But it’s not a strategy to fix the problem and so I would urge everyone on this committee to roll up our sleeves and fix the problem in a humane way that secures the border, gets serious about fixing that problem, that expands and improves legal immigration and that does not unfairly treat legal immigrants by removing a path to citizenship but allowing as this legislation does a legal status for those who are here illegally. That would be reform that a great many people across this country, both Republican and Democrat, would embrace and I would urge the committee to consider the amendment.
So Ted told us, that he “wants immigration reform to pass,” that he was in favor of “common-sense immigration reform,” that he “wanted to fix the problem in a humane way,” and that he was in favor of “legal status for those who are here illegally.” But really folks, he was just joshing, pulling our leg, he didn’t really mean it, he wasn’t sincere, just doing his act. His website now says nothing about such measures and instead is a laundry list of options to deal with undocumented aliens as harshly as possible.
So as the old joke goes, “How can you tell when Ted Cruz is lying?” His lips are moving.
Does Ted Cruz Lack Coattails?
GOP leaders are growing increasingly alarmed at the prospect of a Ted Cruz (TP-Texas) dcandidacy. Many wonder whether the Texas firebrand’s extreme positions and rhetoric (not to mention his abrasive personality) will turn off independents. If he is the nominee, concern is growing that his lack of down ballot pull will endanger the GOP majority in the House. Meanwhile, Democrats are enthused by the prospect. The Texas Tribune has more.
Some Democrats in Washington, D.C., are floating the idea that Ted Cruz could be as injurious to the GOP’s hopes of holding its majority in the U.S. House as the bombastic Donald Trump.
And, as the Tribune’s Abby Livingston reports, some Republicans give some credence to the argument. Former Virginia Republican Congressman Tom Davis said Cruz, as his party’s nominee, could harm candidates in the Northeast and Midwest while potentially helping candidates in the western states.
“I think it has to play out, but there is nervousness with Cruz, who is clearly not part of the establishment, that you don’t find with [Marco] Rubio or [Jeb] Bush or [John] Kasich in some of those districts,” Davis told the Tribune.
“Campaign operatives from both parties point to the 26 GOP-held seats that are in districts where Obama won a majority of the 2012 popular vote,” Livingston writes. “The Republican fear — and Democratic hope — is that Cruz falls short of 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney‘s performance and throws those seats into contention.”
For its part, the Cruz camp discounts such talk. “The way Cruz wins the election is by energizing Republicans and then making the argument to independents and even Democrats for how his conservative principles are what will provide real opportunity and improve their lives,” Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said in an email to the Tribune.
Red files that last comment from the Cruz camp in the “Wet Dreams” folder. But he is also wary of the Dems thinking that a Cruz nomination will benefit them. Never underestimate the power of a complete and total ideologue in a polarized voting public.
Paradise in Hell 