Posted on 09/21/2015 11:15:38 PM PDT by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget
Ted Cruz was on The Late Show with Steven Colbert and the first part of the interview was pretty light-hearted. The second part is when Colbert really started playing to his liberal crowd, even trying to stump Ted Cruz on Ronald Reagan. Gay marriage also came up and Cruz had to set Colbert straight (no pun intended) on his policy position when it comes to gay marriage.
I’ve never understood why anyone thinks this guy is funny. He’s like watching an old car rust.
I think Cruz is so far ahead of everyone else intellectually we need not worry. He is 100 moves ahead playing 3D chess. The injection of Trump has ruined everyone else’s plans but not his. IMHO, he has known this is a marathon from the beginning and crafted a path that is slow but sure. After the others have flared and fizzled he will still be there.
Bookmarking
I get a scary feeling the forces aligned against anyone but a RINO may be too powerful.
Hope i’m wrong.
they’re pushing Carly pretty hard now.
bump for later viewing...
noticed how the crowed booed when he said he “believes in democracy”...
Colbert did the typical “give a speech with a question” routine. Cruz did fine but he never really shut Colbert down.
Cruz was wonderful in this appearance. Clearly the smartest one in the bunch.... A Trump/Cruz ticket would be formidable .... Cruz would take Apart anyone on the planet in a one on one debate.
If Cruz would make speeches with the same relaxed tone and timing he did there on Colbert, he would come off much better.
For some reason, when he gets up in front of a podium he starts evangelizing, or seemingly so, and it just doesn’t play well and it fogs his message.
You must be too young to remember Nixon’s 1968 “Sock-it-to-me” moment
Reagan had a Republican Senate for 6 of his 8 years (but not 60 seats) and never had a Republican House. So, yes, he compromised.
The point where a President Cruz would have to compromise would be very different. We’d start out with maybe 55 seats in the Senate and a majority in the House. This means we’d need a few additional votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. We’d have a lot of bargaining power, because we’d have complete control over the budget process. So, I think we could pass a comprehensive tax reform bill and a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Ditto other issues such as reform of Obamacare and of our entitlement programs. The legislation would have to be a little watered-down. Let’s say 80 percent of what we want and 20 percent of what the other side wants.
Even the Cruz-hating crowd erupted into applause when he spoke of the tyranny of the Supreme Court. They should have canceled the basketball player and the music act and just allocated the entire hour to...
***************************************
Agree, but you have to realize that the audience and viewers of Colbert, Kimmel and Fallon are all liberal LIVs who have to be fed meaningless bullshit entertainment instead of anything serious. They are all having GOP candidates on their shows in hopes of making them look like dopes.
I just saw something in Cruz I have never seen before.
************************************
Then you must not have been paying attention.
Cruz has been quite clear in his opposition to cronies and the DC status quo.
That's how indoctrinated they are.
Colbert is a French name.
As in, coming from the land of people who think Jerry Lewis is funny.
For some reason, when he gets up in front of a podium he starts evangelizing, or seemingly so, and it just doesn’t play well and it fogs his message.
*************************************
I tend to agree with you. Cruz becomes a little too forceful at times when making his points and some take it as preaching.
I think the secondary reason Carson is polling so high is because he is soft-spoken; otherwise he wouldn’t be in the upper tier.
I think we could pass a comprehensive tax reform bill and a comprehensive immigration reform bill.
*******************************************
I generally agree with your posting. However, I have a big problem with the sentence I copied above.
The word that’s a turn-off is “comprehensive”. IMO, the tax and immigration issues need to be dismantled bite by bite. You can’t eat an elephant in one bite!
People hate the word ‘comprehensive’, because it means endless amendments and nothing ever gets done.
Break down tax and immigration, as well as several other federal programs, into segments and submit bills on individual segments to change the omnibus programs.
“comprehensive” allows for some give and take. But, I get your drift. Henry Clay’s Compromise of 1850 was proposed and narrowly defeated as a package and then was narrowly passed as a series of bills.
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.