Posted on 12/17/2014 3:49:22 AM PST by Kaslin
Editor's note: This piece was co-authored by Tim Graham.
Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Elizabeth Warren are polar opposites, a Tea Party conservative and an Occupy Wall Street socialist. Then there are the similarities: Both were elected in 2012, both have Harvard on their resume and both are mentioned as presidential material. But the media's read of the two demonstrates an unquestionable slant.
Both senators have shaken up the Senate over heavy spending and regulation. When Warren does it, she's promoted as a profile in courage, standing up for fairness. When Cruz does it, he's a selfish brat causing meltdowns.
On the Dec. 11 "NBC Nightly News," congressional reporter Kelly O'Donnell professed amazement that Team Obama would let bankers erode regulations on their financial dealings. "A last-minute addition that surprised many Democrats, who are angry not only at Republicans but their own president, too." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was angry, and "the liberal wing's newest star, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, was pushing back, too." Warren was shown proclaiming, "This is not about partisanship. This is about fairness." You could almost hear the trumpets.
Rewind to Ted Cruz's 21-hour speech against Obamacare. On Sept. 24, 2013, NBC anchor Brian Williams announced "critics have called him crazy, irresponsible, even dangerous, but others find him courageous."
The same Kelly O'Donnell saw it just as those critics: crazy, irresponsible, even dangerous. "Forty-two-year-old Ted Cruz, in the Senate just eight months, held up all of Congress's work to make his point." He was going to damage the Republicans: "Cruz fires up the conservative party base, but also frustrated some Republicans, who worry that his personal aspirations could risk damage to the Republican Party brand."
William Jacobson at the blog Legal Insurrection found another example in The Hill newspaper, reflecting the Capitol's own tilt like a funhouse mirror. His examples were less than 24 hours apart. Warren drew the Dec. 12 headline "Warren makes her mark," and on Dec. 13, the headline was "Cruz center of Senate meltdown." The articles even had the same author, a hack named Alexander Bolton.
Bolton began by promoting Warren: "Sen. Elizabeth Warren's crusade against the $1.1 trillion spending bill backed by the White House firmly establishes the Massachusetts populist as a powerful player in Washington." He found a professor from Massachusetts to proclaim she demonstrated a better feel for her party's base than the Senate leadership had. "It could also reverberate in the 2016 presidential race, which liberal Democrats are dying for Warren to enter as a rival to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."
The very next day, the same reporter started in a wholly different way: "Sen. Ted Cruz, the firebrand conservative freshman from Texas, has blown up the Senate leadership's plans to have a peaceful weekend by forcing round-the-clock votes on President Obama's nominees and the $1.1 trillion omnibus." Bolton brought in an unnamed senior Senate Democratic aide to decry the "extreme pettiness on the part of Republicans."
Bolton also bashed Cruz in his Warren puff piece: "The episode vaulted him into the national spotlight and made him popular with many conservatives. But many of his colleagues were furious over what they saw as politically selfish behavior." Reporters couldn't find a Democratic leader who is furious over Warren's so-called selfish behavior when she stands on her leftist principles on big banks?
All this provides a precise GPS location for our liberal media. To them, Ted Cruz is a dangerous extremist, but Warren is their heroine -- compassionate, professorial and politically and economically correct. Anyone who expects objectivity from the press is badly out of touch.
Look for this pattern throughout the 2016 campaign.
Cruz, on the other hand, enjoys very substantial support both in Texas, and outside of it. I would also add that support for Cruz is based from a position of love of freedom, the US Constitution and the rule of law.
Warren's supporters are about sloth, jealousy, and entitlement.
This is why you are seeing so many attacks on Cruz now - from everywhere. They, his opponents, can play dirty with the best of them and lie, obfuscate and dissemble. They have not yet figured out how to fight him effectively and the only thing they can do is tear him down before that big snowball of disgust starts rolling down the hill - eventually unstoppable.
The MSM LOVES frauds on the American people.
Obola was the first major fraud foisted by the MSM.
NO documentation. NO history. NO honesty.
Then, the American Indian wannabee Warren.
NO documentation. SSDD.
The woman who LIED about her heritage to get into Harvard is the one the left takes seriously?
Regarding Cruz - Ronald Reagan didn’t have moderate allies or friends in the media. Look where it got him.
What do you expect from the left?
The liberal media is starting to realize Cruz will be very hard to stop if not impossible. Right now he would crush Hillary or Warren in a presidential election.
Their only shot will be through a stealth third-party candidate to siphon votes from the Republican candidate like Ross Perot did for Bill Clinton.
Cruz is a steamroller.
Because "Republican Leadership" is allied with Democrats and media against him.
I used to think Sarah Palin was the most feared conservative in this country, but I have not realized it is Cruz that has that honor. They FEAR him. Rightfully so, IMO.
Nearly every other hopeful warrior, candidate or outspoken politically minded person (save Palin) over the years has invariably backslid on my beliefs about them. This isn't so with Cruz. Never wavered.
not = now....mea culpa
I stand with Ted
I’m wondering which liberal the media whores will side with, Madam Clinton or Madam Warren. It’s clear they’re out to crucify Cruz, which is hardly a surprise. But the catfight between the two hooker-herders could be interesting.
Fake or not we had better take her seriously. Things are lining up for the public to be suffering full-on wretched revulsion over Crony Capitalism in 2016. And to the extent she is the only one speaking out against it, she is going to benefit.
I agree. I’ve seen people that are not really that political express appreciation for Cruz. I’ve seen the same for Carson. I think with a solid campaign behind him and a megaphone to speak directly to the American people Cruz would be able to really take command. Cruz has the right target audience and its not inside the beltway.
I only really support Cruz. I look at him and I don’t see Cuban heritage, I don’t see minority, ethnicity or anything of the sort. I see American - a real one. One that isn’t into racist preferences, misplaced importance on it, or pandering. I see a man who to my knowledge hasn’t wavered one bit in his convictions and ideals.
Both senators have shaken up the Senate over heavy spending and regulation. When Warren does it, she's promoted as a profile in courage, standing up for fairness. When Cruz does it, he's a selfish brat causing meltdowns.
2008 was the nation's chance to atone for slavery by electing a black man who was not descended from American slaves (but was descended from American slave owners).
If Warren runs, 2016 will be the nation's chance to atone for the Trail of Tears and all the broken treaties with Indian tribes, and for the name of the Washington football team.
Uniparty, period!
FMCDH(BITS)
Right now he would crush Hillary or Warren in a presidential election.
...care to elucidate the Electoral college math that will make that happen...?
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.