Posted on 10/30/2015 1:37:10 PM PDT by Isara
Interesting political debates typically have what could be called primary effects. In Wednesday night's case, those would include the Bush-Rubio exchange, which did a lot of good for Rubio and a lot of damage to Bush, and the Cruz assault on the moderators, which was dazzling.
But there are also answers and exchanges that only become important later on, perhaps in the next debate. You might say these are moments (potentially) have major secondary effects. There are a couple of them lurking in the transcript of Wednesday's debate. One in particular struck me.
Rick Santelli asked Ted Cruz about the Federal Reserve. Here's the heart of Cruz's response:
The second thing we need to do is I think we need to bring together a bipartisan commission to look at getting back to rules- based monetary policy, end this star chamber that has been engaging in this incredible experiment of quantitative easing, QE1, QE2, QE3, QE- infinity.
And the people who are being impacted, you know, a question that was asked earlier, Becky asked, was about working women. You know, it's interesting, you look at on Wall Street, the Fed is doing great. It's driving up stock prices. Wall Street is doing great.
You know, today, the top 1 percent earn a higher share of our income than any year since 1928. But if you look at working men and women. If you look at a single mom buying groceries, she sees hamburger prices have gone up nearly 40 percent.
She sees her cost of electricity going up. She sees her health insurance going up. And loose money is one of the major problems. We need sound money. And I think the Fed should get out of the business of trying to juice our economy and simply be focused on sound money and monetary stability, ideally tied to gold.
I was sympathetic to and impressed by Cruz's response. First, monetary policy is a topic that deserves to be discussed in the presidential race; both judging the zero-interest rate regime and the question of what should guide monetary policy going forward are fundamentally important. And second, as something of an amateur gold bug, I found it exciting to hear Cruz follow in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp and go beyond advocating sound money and monetary stability to mentioning gold. I personally am inclined to believe the gold standard fits into a constitutionalist (in the broad sense) vision of limited and constrained government, and would like to see a dollar once again as good as gold.
But whatever I believe, this is a controversial position, one that many elite economists not just on the left but on the right disdain. Cruz has said something on which he'll be challenged and attacked. If he defends himself ably and elaborates on his understanding, it could be a defining moment for his campaign, where he moves beyond being a very skilled but somewhat formulaic conventional conservative to a risk-taker with a controversial big constitutional and economic idea. If he flubs his defense, or backs off, he'll be damaged. I assume Cruz knows that, and that he's meeting with people like Lew Lehrman and Jim Grant and Jeff Bell to discuss the risk and the opportunity he seems to have embraced going forward. Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see what other candidates say on this slightly esoteric but actually quite revealing and also explosive issue.
Well we all know what a winning issue the gold standard was for President Ron Paul.
Agreed. I don't think he's meeting with people to decide what to do about his gold comment. I assume he did that well before the debate, complete with responses in case the moderators asked a follow-up.
That was Ron Paul.
Ted Cruz has been studying the free markets and economics since he was a teenager.
Yes, but it is very very “inside baseball” and won’t resonate with the general electorate.
This is the electorate who permitted Valerie Jarrett to occupy the Oval Office, remember.
Ted can do it if he can communicate in a very very simple way...like Reagan.
Here is the thing about Cruz. The left cannot get away with calling him an idiot like they did with Bush. What Cruz is doing is creating unassailable positions which will require the MSM to rethink their strategy on attacking him.
While everyone is floundering with trying to come up with answers (the exception is Trump) Cruz is going slow and steady, building up his credentials as a brilliant strategist with knowledge beyond what the field can only imagine.
This is going to get fun. Especially if the establishment has to fallback to Rubio.
There is not enough gold in the world to support this. Remember the Brits were messing with the price of gold and Libor.
http://americanprinciplesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/Implementing-Gold-Standard-Danker.pdf
Does he not understand that we traded the gold-dollar for the petro-dollar? Or that the carbon/AGW hoax is an attempt to convert to a carbon-dollar?
I get this vibe, that it’s going to be Trump/Cruz 2016.
Here we have Trump, the blunt front end, brass knuckles negotiator, and in the back room you have Cruz, with his knives sharpened to make sure the details line up. He’ll bang Sen McConnell like a cheap gong, and make the senate do it’s job.
That’s why they put together this budget disaster that finishes Obastard’s term and one year into the next. They know that these two guys are going to destroy the Washington machine and they wanted to “get theirs” before it comes to a screeching halt.
I can’t say why I think this beyond, that the current situation is lining up in anticipation of Trump/Cruz in a landslide. Everyone in the District of Corruption can feel it too.
From John Koskinen, Lois Lerner, to Hellary, and Bath-House Barry. They know that the investigations and PROSECUTIONS are are going to mount up with a change in control of the Executive Branch. The Just-Us Dept. will return to the Justice Dept. and the democRATS are in deep trouble.
He has everything to gain and nothing to lose. If or when the other candidates challenge him on this position he will make them look like idiots as it’s unlikely any of them, with the possible exception of Trump, can speak coherently on such an esoteric subject. One thing about a skilled debater is that even when they’re arguing a wrong position they can still make the other fellow look like a fool. Formal debate is pro vs. con a proposition and they can’t choose which side they will argue.
There must be a point in there somewhere.....besides the obvious analogy. I mean, seriously that would be an astonishingly poor analogy. I hope you have more than that.
“Ted Cruz set us up the bomb”
Beware RINOS bearing praise. They hate Cruz. They just are touting him now cause every one of their RINOs have failed. Cruz is their last hope in stopping Trump so they can sneak in Rubio.
Bingo.
Ted Cruz ain’t no Rand Paul...thank God..
Lol... Love that. “ Step into my parlor “ , a chess master at work as a politician...
Or they will be convinced persuaded why they held the positions they held in the first place or be in the haze of forgetting.
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.