Posted on 09/14/2013 1:58:05 PM PDT by Sparticus
On PBS’s “NewsHour” on Friday night, New York Times columnist David Brooks warned that Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and similar legislators’ rise to prominence threatens the traditional Republican Party.
Brooks insists the motives of Cruz are less about legislation and policy and more about the politics of undermining the Republican establishment.
“What’s going on in the House, and a bit in the Senate, too, is what you might call the rise of Ted Cruz-ism,” Brooks said. “And Ted Cruz, the senator from Canada through Texas, is basically not a legislator in the normal sense, doesn’t have an idea that he’s going to Congress to create coalitions, make alliances, and he is going to pass a lot of legislation. He’s going in more as a media-protest person. And a lot of the House Republicans are in the same mode. They’re not normal members of Congress. They’re not legislators. They want to stop things. And so they’re just being — they just want to obstruct.”
“And the second thing they’re doing, which is alarming a lot of Republicans, is they’re running against their own party,” he continued. “Ted Cruz is running against Republicans in the Senate. The House Republican Tea Party types are running against the Republican establishment. That’s how they’re raising money. That’s where they’re spending their money on ads. And so they’re having a very obstructive role which is going on this week, and I think it’s going to make John Boehner’s life even more difficult.”
Brooks hypothesized the reason the leadership in the House and Senate is unable to control the so-called Ted Cruz-ism movement is that members of it have become uninterested in any of the perks that the leadership has to offer.
“Two things that are interesting that are happening, especially being talked about this week,” Brooks said. “One, leadership in both bodies, the leadership’s inability to force any discipline. That’s partly because a lot of these people just are not interested in the committee assignments, the normal leverage the leadership has, in part because the earmarks are gone, some of the spending favors.”
Brooks continued that the policy goals of Cruz and others weren’t actual policy goals, but a means to take over the Republican Party.
“[S]o the leadership can’t impose any discipline on a Ted Cruz,” Brooks said. “There’s nothing they can punish him with. And, remember, what these people, Ted Cruz and some of the tea party people, their object is not to win Obamacare. Their object is to take over the Republican Party. So, they really are running against the Republicans. And for Ted Cruz, it’s potentially to get the nomination. And taking this down, if it can mobilize enough Republicans so he can take over the party and become — really transform the party, then that becomes the object. And one little straw in the wind, the Heritage Foundation, a very prominent conservative think tank, is running against Republicans. And that’s part of the change that is going on here.”
What does old David think should happen to the GOP. Have Flimsy and McLame continue to take the party over the cliff.
Got them running scared.
Run, Ted, Run!!
The Cruzers, like a naval assault battle group, is out of the port and steaming toward the point of engagement with the avowed enemies of liberty, truth and freedom. If that means shooting down the buzzing little drones sent over the territory once known as “the United States of America”, then that will be the order of battle.
There is much to be said for a two-party nation, and the Hegelian notion of thesis versus antithesis leading to a new synthesis does work, but only if both the thesis and the antithesis are within narrowly defined limits. If the thesis is too greatly differentiated from the antithesis, there can never be a synthesis.
It is never necessary to agree with the opponent’s premise, but failure to establish ground rules about where the discussion may lead will effectively shut down practical negotiations for a comfortable resolution of the differences.
We have seen hidden agendas injected into some of the most basic of matters. Agreeing with another’s premise, without having defined and reasoned basis to support that agreement, is simply to undercut your own moral high ground and concede the debate before it is begun.
That requires a degree of intellectual honesty on both parties to the debate, and ditching the bombast and rhetoric that does not bear upon the point in question.
As an example, to disagree with Barack Obama is not “racist”. It is to disagree with a particular way of approaching a problem, and to take issue with the way it has been or is being resolved, and to point out the various shortcomings of that resolution. Then the option of trying another approach to further resolve the problem cannot be categorically ruled out, and it is neither immoral nor unjust to call out the opponent for being simply wrong.
It may turn out that the opponent is seemingly wrong in the whole, but may very well not be wrong in part, and it is in these points which are not wrong that agreement may be reached. There may still be strong differences in the underlying premises of both sides, but the practical solution is still based on logical and useful compromises.
“My way or the highway” is not a negotiation. First of all, there has to be a highway for that alternative to even exist, and secondly, there is indication that inflexibility has set in, with both reason and logic gone out the window.
LOL. David must have read Matt Kibbe’s book, “Hostile Takeover” and finally figured out what we want to do. He’s exactly right.
Ted Cruz is bringing us back to a two party system.
Brooks could sleep much better at night if he would give up his quisling ways and join the Democratic Party and invite McPain and Lindsey Graham to join him an exodus too.
And we all know that the purpose of electing Republicans is to make John Boehner's life easy.
“[S]o the leadership can’t impose any discipline on a Ted Cruz,” Brooks said.
Ah, yes, I remember reading in the Constitution about how the purpose of the legislative branch of government is for the 'leadership' to impose discipline on party members. Oh, wait, I must be thinking of the purpose of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Never mind...
You know what I love about this guy Jim?
He never gets rattled, He never gets personal, He just chips away.
Rand Paul was raised off the government teet provided to him by his kook career politician dad, Wrong Paul. I’ve heard too many negative things about Son-of Wrong.
Yep, I didn’t vote for Cruz to go and join some “Gang of Eight”, I voted for him to represent Texas. It was the most enjoyable vote since my last vote for Reagan in 84’.
David Brooks has been spouting this nonsense for twenty years. It’s not ‘news’ anymore.
Dittos. My vote for Ted Cruz was one of the best I've made in my adult life. I'm getting exactly what I want from him.
But see, he couldn't do nearly as much damage to the GOP if he were up front with his true loyalties.
Nice Jefferson Airplane allusion.
I needed a good laugh today and Mr. Brooks provided a few chuckles.
Hey Dave!
Remember when you were writing about the Clinton’s Arkansas adventures?
Especially Hillary’s tirades, when Bill wasn’t giving her enough attention!!!
Well, this was before you were outted and decided the risk of exposing liberals was too high.
Brooks rags on Cruz and insults “traditional” Americans, voters who put these guys in office, clearly NOT to be “traditional legislators”, building coalitions in the McCain/Graham/Ayotte sense of the word, compromising our Constitution and relegating it to the back of the book.
We are Cruzers for a reason. One of the reasons is David Brooks. Fed up.
I hope the Socialist Democrat Gutless Weasel faction in the GOP is displaced tout de suite.
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.