I'll take out(vote AGAINST) an "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN" every time I get an opportunity to, and that INCLUDES the GENERAL ELECTION.
It's SIMPLE.
- Vote AGAINST "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" !
- Vote FOR REAL CONSERVATIVE "Tea Party Candidates" !
Posted on 05/16/2015 10:20:36 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Ted Cruz is intellectually arrogant, like Ronald Reagan. The difference is that Reagan masked his arrogance with self-deprecating humor. Sen. Cruz does a Reagan impression that would do a nightclub comedian proud, but he doesn’t have Reagan’s easy and spontaneous humor.
One doesn’t think of Reagan as arrogant, but he was in fact the most arrogant leader we have had since Lincoln. He ignored the whole of the foreign policy establishment in his conviction that America stood to win the Cold War and bring down Communism. Then as now, the foreign policy establishment resembled Jonathan Swift’s scientists on the floating island of Laputa, treading perilously close to the edge with noses in the air.
Sen. Cruz is authentically bright, sufficiently so for the liberal Alan Dershowitz to declare that he was the best student he had ever had at Harvard’s Law School. The conservative legal theorist Robert P. George, who taught Cruz at Princeton, says the same thing. He’s so smart that he is not the least impressed by the conservative foreign policy establishment.
That’s what qualifies Ted Cruz for the presidency. Among the Republican candidates, Cruz is the only one to state plainly that we stayed too long in Iraq and erred in trying to turn it into Switzerland. (I exclude Rand Paul, who is a dumb rube isolationist of the old school and unqualified for national office). Contrast this to Jeb Bush, who thinks we didn’t stay long enough. Cruz still has some things to learn, to be sure. Sending arms to Ukraine, as he proposes, is pointless. Russian leader Vladimir Putin wants to keep Ukraine in civil war indefinitely, and will match whatever we send in order to do so. Putin wants revenge for the West’s effort to break Ukraine out of the Russian sphere, and leaving the West with a bloody, bankrupt, ungovernable mess on its doorstep is his best move. As Prof. Angelo Codevilla told a Claremont Institute gathering last October, the way to frustrate Putin is to let him keep the Russian-majority Eastern Ukraine, a rust-bucket and money pit of no value to the West; the Western part of Ukraine would then be Catholic and pro-Western.
Sixteen years of George W. Bush and Barack Obama will leave the next president with a different world: a new Sino-Russian entente directed against theUS, and chaos in most of the Middle East. Both are the consequence of foreign policy utopianism. We destroyed the century-long balance of power in Iraq and Syria by forcing majority rule in Iraq, and stood godfather to a perpetual Sunni-Shi’ite civil war. We tried to flip Ukraine to the West, and Putin allied with China. We have scored nothing but own-goals. We are spending a trillion and a half dollar on the Edsel of the air, the F-35, and have allowed China to narrow the technology gap that once made the United States the dominant superpower.
The foreign policy establishment of both parties agrees that it is America’s mission to remake the world in its own image, although the liberal Wilsonian and the neo-conservative Republican versions of this utopia have minor differences. We need a president arrogant enough to ignore the whole pack of them, just like Reagan did. That requires arrogance more than any other quality.
Things looked bad when Ronald Reagan came into office. Most of the intellectual elite in Europe as well as the US thought that Russia would win the Cold War. Of course, Reagan had one gigantic advantage: the US was the only venue in the world where an entrepreneur could raise money for disruptive new technologies. The talent of the world came to America, while Russia and China remained paralyzed by Communism and Europe remained moribund. That’s not true today: China and other Asian countries are innovating, in some cases faster than we are. If you don’t believe me, visit the Science Park in Shenzhen where Tencent and other Chinese computer firms have facilities. The next president will have a much tougher mission. Sen. Cruz is the only candidate I who is tough, smart and arrogant enough to do the job.
Marco Rubio is a bright and personable young man with an attractive message, but he is callow enough to think that Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer are foreign policy sages. Rubio speaks eloquently of his support for Israel, but a great deal of what he proposes will damage Israeli interests. For the past ten years, Russia has told us that it would hurt us in Iran in retaliation for Western efforts to get control of Ukraine. Russia is threatening to give Iran sophisticated air-defense systems; if it wants to, Russia can create a huge amount of trouble for us in Iran. America’s stupidity in Ukraine turns Israel into collateral damage; every Israeli I know thinks that American policy toward Ukraine is crazy.
Scott Walker is a terrific governor and an attractive candidate, but he has no foreign policy experience–unlike Reagan, who did a weekly foreign policy radio broadcast for a decade, and did his own research. Walker could persuade me that he knows what he’s doing, but I haven’t heard much from him yet. Foreign policy is too important for the next administration for us to elect a president who needs on-the-job training.
Agreed. “Aggressive” is too strongly negative a word.
I love Cruz, but this bothered me from the piece:
“..Cruz is the only one to state plainly that we stayed too long in Iraq ..”
It’s when Obama pulled out our peace-keeping troops that ISIS took power.
Am I missing something?
I agree with your take on “arrogant”. I wonder
which past and present Democrat leaders the
author would describe in that way. I started
following Reagan in politics in ‘65 and this
is the first time I have heard that term
applied to RR. If Reagan was arrogant then
how would the author describe the current
alleged presidente.
“..but I would like to hear more about how we stayed too long in Iraq. ..”
Me too, as evidenced in my last post. If we are puzzled by this, many others might be, as well.
The Senator is not only facing strong opposition from the Democrats, but also from the sell-outs in his own party. The only way he is going to run is through strong support from us ordinary people. It would be great if FreeRepublic and other conservative groups could unite behind Ted Cruz.
Alas, we conservatives are hopelessly divided, much to the delight of our enemies. We're going to be stuck once again with another liberal with an “R” after his name. And once again, the commie Democrats will win the White House.
As for me, I'm voting for Ted Cruz all the way. I'll write in his name in the general election if I have to. I refuse to hold my nose and vote for the establishment candidate ever again. I wish others would have the courage to do the same.
HAHA, yes,
Just like anyone here who didn't trash everyone in 2011 but Palin for POTUS, even though she never intended to run(for 2012) , but we all had to fall behind her never-to-exist run and trash whoever to show our loyalty or we must hate FR.
This post trashed Walker to try to pump Cruz. Typical Palinista idiocy.
That game is way too old and played too many times here,
I read it. Is the author defining “neoconservative” as liberal or something else?
I never agreed with Cruz’ assessment that the liberals in the US ever attempted to turn Iraq into Switzerland. The Uniparty was just fine turning it into a slightly different kind of Islamic state.
The “parties” were not so different, really. Just look at the history of the GOP particularly after WWII.
If I woke the day after the election and either of these guys were President Elect, I'd feel blessed.
It's not necessary to denigrate one to support the other, and I wonder about those unable to resist the urge.
Make sure you post that ridiculous “Braveheart” graphic at least three more times in addition to the 3 or 4 you’ve already posted it in this thread so EVERYBODY on Earth gets to see it. I see a boy washing himself in the Ganges and a little girl in North Korea who haven’t glimpsed it yet. Oh, there’s an old grandmother in Kenya, hurry, show it to her!!
arrogant salute!
Subterfuge article.
It isn’t really about Cruz so much as using him to propagate Putinaganda.
He had me fooled for a while.
This place is becoming more of a crackpot headquarters than a chem-trails meeting. You don’t live in Colorado by any chance, do you?
:)
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.