Cruz’s terrifying reinvention: How the most detestable senator is repackaging himself for November

Cruz's odds of winning the nomination are steadily increasing, and we should bey very, very afraid

On the occasion of longshot presidential candidate Ted Cruz’s campaign launch back in March, The Onion published a satirical piece about subscribers to TIME magazine bracing themselves for the awful, “inevitable” day when they would open their mailboxes to find themselves staring at a picture of Cruz on the cover under a headline like “The Game Changer” or “The Firebrand.” It was an absurd joke that went so meta that this week when TIME actually put Cruz on the cover, they also ran a story about The Onion’s piece from a year ago. Our politics have become very, very surreal.

TIME’s cover story is headlined, “Likable Enough?,” accompanied by a fetching portrait of Cruz with a mischievous look on his face and a lovely ice blue tie. He looks exceedingly likable and once you read the stories within, you’ll have to conclude that the man whom virtually everyone with the misfortune of knowing him finds repulsive is terribly misunderstood. Where you might have thought the man was a doctrinaire rightwinger, steeped in religious fanaticism and radical free market extremism, you will find out that he’s actually a good old boy, a salt of the earth populist. (One hopes for his sake that nobody leaves a copy lying around on the yachts of some of the billionaires who’ve been writing ten million dollar checks on his behalf. It could get awkward.)

In an interview entitled “Ted Cruz Embraces Economic Populism,” a very slick Cruz says:

[B]oth parties, career politicians in both parties get in bed with the lobbyist and special interest. And the fix is in. Where Washington’s policies benefit big business, benefit the rich and the powerful at the expense of the working men and women.

Now the point that I often make, and just a couple of days ago in Wisconsin I was visiting with a young woman who said she was a Bernie Sanders supporter. And I mentioned to her that I agreed with Bernie on the problem.

But I said if you think the problem is Washington is corrupt, why would you want Washington to have more power? I think the answer to that problem is for Washington to have less power, for government to have less power over our lives.

This has always been the American right’s clever little take on “populism.” Sure, sure, folks, those rich guys and big business are bad, very bad. But it’s all because they’re bribing politicians to give them what they want. The best thing to do is slash taxes, reverse all regulations and get rid of consumer protections so they won’t need to bribe politicians because they’ll have everything they want! Then the power of the markets will be unleashed and you can be rich too!

Throughout the interview, this wily Ivy League educated lawyer presents himself as the champion of the working class, the guy whose only concerns lie with the single mom who works as a waitress and the dad who lost his job down to the plant and can’t get ahead. But in reality his record on economics is one that only a Koch Brother could love. And even they can’t stand him.

Still he’s presented as some sort of iconoclast who defies the usual right-wing classification because he opposes the Import-Export Bank and ethanol subsidies, both of which are obscure little libertarian totems that will have exactly zero effect on the lives of those waitress moms and unemployed dads for whom he purports to care so much. Most of his economic agenda will actually devastate them and everyone they know.

For instance, he’s one of the few Republicans to actually believe that the U.S. should return to the gold standard. This is a fringe position held by acolytes of Rand Paul and Glenn Beck, which the Washington Post WonkBlog noted is held by virtually no experts anywhere. The Post quotes University of Chicago professor Anil Kashyap saying that “love of the gold standard implies macroeconomic illiteracy.” (And needless to say, calling a goldbug a populist is to take a hallucinogenic trip down the yellow brick road, if you know what I mean.)

Cruz is not just a run-of-the-mill deficit hawk — he is for a balanced budget amendment combined with monumental tax cuts (and the total abolition of the IRS) which would require disastrous cuts to thousands of vital programs. Everyone knows he favors repealing the Affordable Care Act; he led the quixotic rightwing hostage taking effort to shut down the government and default on the debt in order to make that happen. It doesn’t take much to imagine the chaos and pain that would ensue as tens of millions of waitress moms and unemployed dads lose their insurance.

He plans to completely deregulate Wall Street and has been endorsed by the Club for Growth, which describes its mission as “cutting taxes, controlling federal spending, personal accounts for Social Security, ending the death tax, eliminating the capital gains tax, fundamental tax reform, providing true school choice and minimizing government’s role in our daily lives.” Every one of those goals are designed to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the average citizen.

Those are just some of his economic policies, all of which are as conservative as it gets. For all we know, he may even believe his own hype — conservatives have been selling trickle down as a great boon to the middle and working class for decades. It’s possible that he just hasn’t noticed that all of this hocus pocus has been tried and has failed miserably to benefit anyone but the 1 percent. But Cruz is a very cunning politician and the smooth way he uses populist-style rhetoric to sell a plutocratic agenda makes it likely he knows exactly what he’s doing.

Ted Cruz saying he’s fighting the elites on behalf of the working man sounds very nice. But let’s just say that the big money boys won’t be disappointed if his agenda is enacted. Indeed, they’ll be ecstatic. And surely the media must know this. Calling him a “populist” because he trash talks Washington just like Bernie Sanders shows just how eagerly the press allows themselves to be gulled into a sexy story line. And this one looks distressingly like something we might see cooked up in Grover Norquist’s basement: The “everyman” populist Cruz, slayer of RINOs, vs. the ancient establishment drudge Hillary Clinton, defender of the corrupt Washington cartel. And that’s ridiculous. Ted Cruz is so deeply wedded to laissez faire, free market ideology that he makes any Democrat, whether Clinton, Sanders or even Joe Lieberman look like William Jennings Bryan by comparison.

All presidential finalists get an opportunity to be looked at with fresh eyes by the press when it starts to look as if they have a serious chance. But it behooves the media not to get carried away into total fantasy in order to set up a preferred story line. Ted Cruz is a very smart guy and has been underrated throughout this campaign. But ultra conservative Republicans aren’t voting for him because of his winning personality or “populist” economics. They’re voting for him because he a far right fanatic just like they are. Just because he isn’t Donald Trump it doesn’t mean he isn’t also a demagogue. He’s just a different kind.

While I do not have any doubt that there is a liberal progressive plan to create a one world government (also Biblical) and that it will govern through 10 unions, one of which is the North American Union revealed by non other than former CIA director Gen Petraeus (who still advises the WH as is evident by Fire Base Bell and our boots on the ground in Iraq alongside Iranians), there just isn’t proof that Mrs Cruz is an author of the report or that Senator Cruz is a collaborator. I just don’t see how a person who interprets the constitution in its historical context can be a globalist.

The Council on Foreign Relations seems to me to be a modern group of Tower of Babel builders. First time I have seriously considered the concept, but it really does make sense since I am a post-tribulationist and very much into theology.

My world view from culture to government to neurology to psychology is based on what I read in my Bible. It can’t contradict the Creator. For my view on national government, see my profile. Back on subject.

Mrs Cruz wrote a paragraph about the infamous report.

“I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America. Economic prosperity and a world safe from terrorism and other security threats are no doubt inextricably linked. While governments play an invaluable role in both regards, we must emphasize the imperative that economic investment be led and perpetuated by the private sector. There is no force proven like the market for aligning incentives, sourcing capital, and producing results like financial markets and profit-making businesses. This is simply necessary to sustain a higher living standard for the poorest among us - truly the measure of our success. As such, investment funds and financing mechanisms should be deemed attractive instruments by those committing the capital and should only be developed in conjunction with market participants.”

I have a lot more reading to do! downloadable report links are on the left.

http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community-report-independent-task-force-future-north-america/p8138

http://www.cfr.org/canada/creating-north-american-community/p7912

http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102

Donald Trump Held Briefing With Richard Haass, Head of Council on Foreign Relations

Donald J. Trump, who again declined on Thursday morning to say whom he talks to about foreign affairs, held a private briefing last summer with Richard N. Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a spokeswoman for Mr. Haass said Thursday.

The spokeswoman, Iva Zoric, released a statement after Mr. Trump made a laudatory statement about Mr. Haass in an appearance Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“I respect Richard Haass, who’s on your show a lot,” Mr. Trump said. “And I like him a lot. I have a few people that I really like and respect.’

Mr. Haass, as president of an independent nonpartisan organization, cannot make an endorsement in the presidential race, Ms. Zoric’s statement said. She said that he had offered to hold briefings with all candidates from both parties, and that so far Senator Marco Rubio, Jim Webb, Hillary Clinton, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, Gov. John Kasich of Ohio and Jeb Bush had made appearances at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Ms. Zoric added that the Trump-Haass meeting was held in August.

A version of this article appears in print on 03/04/2016, on page A13 of the New York edition with the headline: Head of Council on Foreign Relations Held Briefing With Trump Last Year.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/03/donald-trump-held-briefing-with-richard-haass-head-of-council-on-foreign-relations/?_r=0

If you have ever studied Trump, he preaches love and very rarely says anything bad on anybody. He will say he likes everybody and says he respects everybody.

He does a lot of unnoticed good things for people. He also preaches love for America and love for people pretty much every rally - even more he acts this out with his un-promoted charity that we do not hear of from him, but the people hes helped.

That he acts friendly to even enemies at least on the surface is how we as Christians are supposed to, not a harsh word etc. He calls Cruz a Lair same as others do because Cruz is a deceptive person. But otherwise he says he likes and respects him just like was alluded in your damage control.

You will need more then what we are commanded to do to everybody per the Word to smear Trump.

Now as to Cruz, hes a Globalist, By now if you are not a paid troll for the establishment you can see his history of promoting The NAU agenda and being deeply involved in it.

Trump loves America, Cruz does not. That is the only rational deduction with Cruz’s history of selling Americans down the tube to the Globalists.

Trump is solid America First, cannot spin that to say hes the same as the Foreign-born Harvard lawyer.

I’ll do the same as to why I support the opposite.

I have found that taking a logical argument to an emotional fight is just as likely to produce a satisfactory result as deploying a plastic spoon in a gunfight so it is refreshing to see someone else who values reason above feelings.

Senator Cruz impressed me when he first bucked the system and opposed the chosen candidate for senate. I initially thought he would be crushed and was very surprised that he withstood everything thrown against him and prevailed against all odds. As opposed to most new senators, he did not adopt the go along to get along approach, but rather quickly learned the rules of the game and used them to pursue the agenda he had set out. Although he was often the lone voice, he never wavered and, often with only the force of his convictions, was able to rally the House to do what he did not have the power to do in the Senate. Using the often convoluted rules of the Senate where you often support something in order to oppose it, he was actually able to influence action on some critical issues. Both in the Senate and in this campaign, he has shown an ability to remain calm and focused while undergoing intense and often personal attacks. His has actually exhibited a temperament suitable to operate effectively in a public position of power and responsibility.

Mr. Trump initially impressed me by articulating what the critical problems of the country were. Being from Texas, his views on immigration was of particular interest as was his views on the deliberate destruction of our manufacturing base. He had an impressive resume of accomplishment in the business world and made a good argument about being able to finance his own campaign. Since I don't pay much attention to the popular media, and his business interest are not a big deal in my area, my assessment of him as a viable candidate did not begin until he announced for office so it took longer into the process for my impression to solidify. I begin to notice a tendency to personalize disagreements and engage in ridicule and name calling, especially in public forums where their adherence to more civil rules of conduct prevented his targets from responding in kind. I also noticed a tendency to waffle on and qualify initial hard line positions by suggesting they were only negotiating points. The emphasis on negotiating and deal making, might sound good at first hearing, but the president is charged by the constitution with making sure the laws enacted by congress are carried out whether the president likes them or not. There appears to be a lack of preparation and more of a tendency to deny mistakes than to learn from them. Needless to say, ability to Twitter is not a recommendation for president.

I know that my discussion of Mr. Trump has focused more on temperament than on accomplishment but that is because his accomplishments have very little relationship to the position he is seeking. The traits that serve an entrepreneur or entertainer are not necessarily those needed for success in a public office which depends greatly on the ability to work with and through other strong willed and opinionated individuals and to accept limitations on authority. While the record of Senator Cruz provides a fairly good indication of how he would perform in a more responsible governmental role, the projection of Mr. Trump into the role of president is more based on faith than performance. As an aside, I can't help but think of Governor Palin remarking to supporters of President Obama, "How is that hopeechangee working out?"

Despite all above, my decision that Senator Cruz was the best option was solidified when Justice Scalia died. President Carter proved that our country could survive a president who was well intentioned but incompetent. President Obama has proven that the country can survive a president with bad intent and the competence to carry that out. During these two administrations as with all the ups and downs observed in my 70 plus years on this earth, I have never doubted the survival of the constitution as the absolute check on government infringement on the rights of the people. We currently have a large segment of the population with no allegiance to the constitution and fully one half the membership of the supreme court holding the view that the constitution has no modern day relevance. The next president will be elected for a four year term but will likely determine the fate of our constitutional government for the next 20 to 30 years through his appointments to the Supreme Court. On this most critical issue, I consider Senator Cruz to be far and away a better bet. Since any democrat is a certainty in the wrong direction, I would willingly take either of our two over either of their two.

I know I am posting this long after everyone has moved on from this thread but I got to your question late and had to give it some thought before replying. I put my thought on the public forum rather than private mail as you suggested because, although I don't like the negative tone evident recently, I don't think it should deter rational discussion. Since your tag line mentioned a first primary vote, I assume you are just beginning your political life and if that is so, I have to say you are taking a more thoughtful approach than I did when I was your age.

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.