Cruz: 'Where We Are Today Reminds Me a Great Deal of the Late 1970s' & Carter

(CNSNews.com) – The economic and political scene in America today is similar to what was occurring in the late 1970s, but this is not all bad news for conservatives because “it took Jimmy Carter to give us Ronald Reagan,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in a tele-town hall sponsored by the conservative group ForAmerica.

“I understand that looking at what’s happening in this country, it’s easy to be demoralized, to feel despondent at the continual assault on our liberty,” said Cruz. “But I want to encourage everyone -- it often takes things getting really bad, to wake people up. It took Jimmy Carter to give us Ronald Reagan.”

Cruz drew a comparison between what was happening under President Jimmy Carter with the last five years under President Barack Obama, along with other observations about the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), youth unemployment, the national debt, foreign policy, and the Benghazi scandal.

ForAmerica, which sponsored the tele-town hall on April 29, was founded by author, columnist, and activist L. Brent Bozell III. ForAmerica supports personal freedom, a limited, constitutional government, a strong national defense, and a commitment to Judeo-Christian values.

Bozell is also the president of the Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com.

For the tele-town hall, Bozell introduced Cruz and the two spoke briefly about Obamacare and how polls show the new health care law is not popular and likely will be a major issue in the 2014 elections. Cruz went on to talk about how politicians, on both sides of the aisle, are averse to taking risks and that, in his view, the best way to affect change is through the grassroots as happened in the late 1970s.

“If we get back to the founding principles of this country, we can turn America around,” said Cruz. “I’m optimistic because Americans are waking up, they’re speaking out, and they’re holding our government accountable. You know, the Book of Ecclesiastes tells us there is nothing new under the sun. And I think where we are today reminds me a great deal of the late 1970s.”

“In the late 1970s, Jimmy Carter was in the White House,” he said. “We had the same failed economic policies, out of control spending and taxes and regulation. It produced the same stagnation and misery and malaise. And we had the same naïve and feckless foreign policy that was making the world a much, much more dangerous place.”

Cruz continued, “And in response, all across this country, we saw a grassroots movement – millions of men and woman who rose up to become the Reagan Revolution. That didn’t come from Washington. Washington despised Ronald Reagan. It came instead from the American people.”

“And that tidal wave that swept in the Reagan Revolution, turned this country around, turned us back from economic malaise and stagnation to vibrant economic growth, to expanding opportunity for all Americans,” said the senator from Texas. “And it turned around our foreign policy to reasserting American values to ultimately winning the Cold War without firing a shot.”

“That came from the grassroots,” he said. “And the reason I’m optimistic, the reason I am hopeful is I’m convinced the same thing is happening. I’m optimistic and hopeful because of each of you, because as we stand up together, it’s only the American people that can turn this around. As we stand up together and we hold elected officials in Washington accountable, that’s how we’re going to get back to the principles this country was founded on.”

As the tele-town hall continued, Cruz answered questions from people calling in, as well as questions submitted through Twitter and Facebook.

In speaking to a college student, Cruz encouraged him to use his time wisely to study the history, ideas, and people that helped build America and to share his learning with his peers, face to face and through social media.

Cruz also talked about the Benghazi scandal, stressing that in the nearly two years since the attack, “no one has been brought to justice – we haven’t apprehended the terrorists, we haven’t brought them to justice.”

Although Cruz talked about the necessity for strong leaders in government, he repeatedly emphasized the power of ordinary Americans speaking out for their beliefs and holding politicians accountable.

“What makes a difference, the reason why the Washington establishment is reacting with such terror to what is happening is because of you,” said Cruz. “The reason they’re reacting is because when millions of Americans rise up and hold elected officials accountable, it changes the rules.”

Following on Senator Cruz’s remarks, ForAmerica President Brent Bozell said that, for years, conservatives had been clamoring for a new generation of leaders who would not succumb to “Beltway Fever” and not compromise their principles.

“I can now say to our 5 million supporters around the country that the cavalry really has arrived,” said Bozell. “For the first time in a long, long time, I am actually optimistic about the future.”

I was the one who asked the question about Benghazi,I wanted to know why no one seems interested in the gun running that was going on from Benghazi and that Rand Paul had asked Hillary about it when she testified before Congress and she just deflected the question,she remarked,running guns through Turkey!you have to ask someone else about that

but he nevertheless proudly called himself a Born Again Christian.

Underneath his folksy demeanor and born-again facade is an atheistic, treasonous Bolshevik sympathizer. Nothing he has said or done since he left office indicates otherwise.

I never thought I’d say this, but if we could bring back Jimmy Carter, just as inept and antisemitic as ever but now senile and bitter too, I’d consider that a great improvement. The question today is whether Obama will end up as bad as James Buchanan or even worse than Buchanan.

There was no grassroots rising in 1980, as polls were tight going into the last week of the election. Polls had even shown Reagan in 3rd place at one point in the early Summer.

And you can prove this how?

That's your opinion using a set of loosely coupled together observations on your part. Then you go about using that weak argument of yours to pretend that Senator Cruz is attempting to re-write history.

Once again, how do you prove this analytically, and not just with the loosely coupled information that you provided?

And you can prove this how?

I question your statement, because I was there and I know that before the campaign even started, essentially from the point where Reagan lost to Ford at the convention, Ronald Reagan hit the road and communicated his small-government conservative message to anyone and everyone who would listen to him. He united and energized the grass-roots by doing this.

Pretending that this was not a component of his two POTUS wins is simply wrong.

Pull up some old AP newspaper reports from June-July 1980.

Reagan was running behind both Carter and Anderson at the time. Revisionist history serves no one when it is so easily disproved.

Reagan was running behind both Carter and Anderson at the time. Revisionist history serves no one when it is so easily disproved.

What does his standing in the polls have to do with the Grassroots?

This is YOUR fallacy that you are presenting.

He won over Carter precisely because he had a base of Grassroots supporters. He was not relying on the normal Moderate approach, but had already lined up the grassroot support exactly as I stated in my earlier approach. Because he had done the groundwork criss-crossing the country and talking to every conservative mom-and-pop organization he could speaking up his limited government, conservative social policy, and strong military agenda.

Don't believe me, try looking up what his son Michael has said about this. He's the one that has publically made this point.

Your stated position is the Revisionist history.

Reagan was also very unpopular in his first term due to a stagnant economy and foreign policy tragedies throughout 1983 (remember, Beirut?), and as late as after the first debate he was running even with Mondale in 1984. Those who cite economic recovery as the basis of his support in 1984 are implicitly endorsing the same federal reserve policies which are being criticized today, as they opened the M2 spigot in Spring 1984.

Post-election studies show that the uncommitted vote moved to Reagan on the weekend before the election, more as an anti-Carter vote than a pro-Reagan endorsement, and that’s what made up the landslide margin in 1980.

Reagan was also very unpopular in his first term due to a stagnant economy and foreign policy tragedies throughout 1983 (remember, Beirut?), and as late as after the first debate he was running even with Mondale in 1984. Those who cite economic recovery as the basis of his support in 1984 are implicitly endorsing the same federal reserve policies which are being criticized today, as they opened the M2 spigot in Spring 1984.

None of that proves that the grass-roots was not heavily involved with supporting Reagan all along from the start of his candidacy.

For all you know, his debate performance swung more establishment and independent voters his way vs. the grass-roots.

In fact, this is a more plausible position because it is exactly those type of people who are more emotional and would be swung by a win in a debate performance because they want to back a winner vs. the grass-roots who have a tendency to be better informed and make decisions based on principles vs. emotion.

Your logic is flawed.

The point is that it wasn’t the grassroots that elected Reagan per Cruz’s current rhetoric, but it was in fact an anti-incumbent vote among swing voters in 1980 that removed Carter from office.

The point is that it wasn’t the grassroots that elected Reagan per Cruz’s current rhetoric, but it was in fact an anti-incumbent vote among swing voters in 1980 that removed Carter from office.

All speculation on your point with no support in facts on the ground.

I was there, and everyone I know, conservatives and people who would be considered traditional social conservatives and those who understood what the constitution was all about were as excited as hell to be able to vote for Ronald Reagan.

My experience tells me it was a grassroots tsunami that swept Ronald Reagan into office, your theory not withstanding.

The grassroots groups energized Reagan's election. The rejection of Carter's weakness and incompetence with the Iran crisis and the poor economy was far more important than any "anti-incumbent" movement.

The American people knew Carter was wrong, and threw him out in spite of the media's insistence that Reagan was an "extremist". The more people heard from Reagan themselves, the more they liked him. The more they saw of Carter, the more they disliked him.

I have said on many threads that the circumstances around 2012 election was very similar to 1980. Two big differences though:

(1) And biggest reason. We have grown an electorate that is addicted to stuff and entitlements. The percentage of slugs sucking on the left hind teat of the government is much higher, and they sure didn't want to give up that gravy train. A real good 3 minute capsule which sums up the election is the film about the lady talking about her Obamaphone.

(2)Romney was a much weaker leader and candidate than RWR.

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.