Posted on 03/17/2014 7:32:34 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
It’s hard to believe but Ted Cruz and Barack Obama do have one thing in common. Both have now won awards more for their potential than for their achievements. In Obama’s case, it was the Nobel Peace Prize, an award given to the likes of Yasser Arafat for bringing “peace to the Middle East” and, yes, Al Gore for his maunderings about the weather. In Cruz’s case, it was the Claremont Institute’s Statesmanship Award, previously given to the likes of Milton Friedman and Margaret Thatcher.
I leave it to you to decide which is the greater honor, but I was in attendance Saturday night at Claremont’s annual Churchill dinner at the Beverly Wilshire to see Cruz receive his award and, more importantly, deliver a speech. I was anxious to go because the Texas senator is one of the men of the Republican hour and a darling of the militant wing of the party. He is also quite clearly a bright fellow, a cum laude graduate of Princeton where he was a national debating champion, then a magnum cum laude grad of Harvard Law where he was called “off-the-charts brilliant” by none other than Alan Dershowitz, who, to my knowledge, has never said quite the same thing about Obama. From there the future Texas senator went on to clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist.
Perhaps even more impressive about Cruz is that he was already studying such free-market economists as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Frederic Bastiat and Ludwig Mises in high school. Not too many of us could say that. But if we had, I suspect this country would be a lot different.
My problem with the Texas senator, as I have written previously, has been one of tactics, not ideology. I was put off, as were a significant portion of the electorate, if we can believe the polls, by his effort to shut down the government over Obamacare, even though that same electorate disdained Obama’s absurd healthcare legislation — or should I say prevarication? Nevertheless, for a moment, the Republican brand was damaged. I was worried that it might be fatal. I was dead wrong.
I wanted to hear Cruz speak at the Churchill dinner to see if I was dead wrong about him as well. I think I probably was. The man delivered a fine speech. He was personable. He was funny. (He made father-in-law jokes rather than mother-in-law jokes.) He hit his ideological marks and he also spent time defending his tactical position.
He quoted Lady Thatcher in his defense when she famously said, “First you win the argument, then you win the vote.” So true, and just the opposite of our current president whose “argument” was the puerile and non-existent “hope and change,” really no argument at all, before he won the vote — and look what that has done to our country. Liberals in general don’t make arguments (largely because they don’t have any). They appeal to emotion.
Of course, conservatives and libertarians must appeal to emotion as well — to some degree at least — if they intend to win elections. I was concerned Cruz would not be able to do that. I am much less concerned now.
Does that mean I am signing up on the Cruz for President train? No. It’s way too early for that and, if the last go-round is any indication, I’m going to change my mind about twenty-five times anyway. The only train I will sign up for is getting a Republican in the White House, virtually any Republican. I have to admit it. I’m desperate.
Before I stop, I’d like to tip my hat to the Claremont Institute. For those of you who don’t know it, it’s doing great work. You should educate yourself. And you should read its Claremont Review of Books. It’s sort of the non-pharmaceutical antidote to the New York Review of Books and, on occasion at least, considerably wittier.
I am not a bean counter. However, if that is what you believe then you are more naive then I am about Cruz (as you feel).
C’mon, Naps. You’re better than that.
okay, some sort of procurment or other bureaucratic job……jockeying a desk…..if I recall.
Ok. I will just tell you because I know you know or knew at one time. I work at the Naval Academy. I hardly call that bean counting or other pentagon type job. However, it is part of the scary federal government so I will give you credit for saying I suck because I can’t get a real job as some of you have mentioned before (not you specifically).
I know it’s at the naval academy…..and I would never say whether or not it is a real job or not….all branches of the military and the academies have what we would call real jobs but as government entities, they have bloated bureaucracies as well. I would never assume you were one or the other.
But you do have a blind spot to the free enterprise system…..as many in the military, law enforcement field, etc, seem to. That you have demonstated on many occaisions, which is why some folks do say you could not get a real job.
But you do have a blind spot to the free enterprise system…..as many in the military, law enforcement field, etc, seem to.
Kinda true, but not sure why. I guess when you go from the military to the federal government with over 26 years combined and very little private employment, it just makes you protect the government. My biggest problem with government especially federal is that they combine everything into one. I think if we could keep the military and even pentagon separately, we could be better off. I do agree that some of the military and Pentagon could be cut in areas and they are working on it for sure. The next ten years we will see major cuts in the military and Pentagon. However most other federal agencies will be spared.
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.