Cruz is Properly Applying Reagan’s 11th Commandment

Conservative Review ^ | December 22nd, 2015 | Jen Kuznicki

[Isara]

After six solid months of Republican after Republican attacking Donald Trump—and Trump nailing them back—some Republicans, especially Rubio supporters, continue to blame Ted Cruz for losing their support because he won’t attack Trump.

Leon Wolf of RedState made the most honest case for why his ire continues to be raised for Cruz in “Ted Cruz Has a Problem.”

Wolf, an obvious Rubio supporter, can’t get over the fact that Cruz won’t attack Trump like Wolf believes Cruz is attacking Rubio.

“It’s not just that Cruz disagreed with Rubio. It’s that his disagreement was laced with biting sarcasm and personal attacks,” said Wolf.

“Whatever you think of his [Rubio’s] work with the Gang of 8 and his claim that he learned from the experience and won’t repeat it, it does not merit him being treated worse than Trump. Not to someone who is dedicated to the advancement of actual conservative ideals, like I know Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 100% is.”

An unbiased reading of the transcript from the debate Wolf referred to, however, might show that Cruz did not in fact personally attack Rubio, and that is the point of everything.

Before running for president, Cruz penned an autobiography where he mentions his admiration for Ronald Reagan and the so-called 11th Commandment; he has since been employing it as part of his campaign.

But the meaning of the 11th commandment is often blurred, mostly because many use it as an easy way out, sort of like the left accuses people of racism—as a shutdown of debate. When I began commenting on politics, local Republicans would accuse me of violating “Reagan’s 11th” when I pointed out the differences between the candidates on issues.

Reagan biographer, Craig Shirley, has many times explained the true meaning of the commandment: “The commandment never meant that one Republican could not criticize the policies or philosophies of another Republican. It meant only that one could or should not engage in personal attacks on another Republican.”

Now, by far the biggest sinner against the 11th is Donald Trump, no question; but in responding to his attacks, or assaulting his lead, most of the other candidates have violated it.

Trump should have known better than to mention Carly Fiorina’s face, Marco Rubio’s sweating, Jeb Bush’s low energy, Carson’s alleged craziness, Rand Paul’s looks and so on, but it was employed as part of a strategy, because, as he admitted back in October, “I’m being divisive right now because I want to win.”  Now, Trump might realize he needs the Republican Party to start to coalesce around his campaign, and so has admitted that his divisiveness doesn’t contribute to that.

But in the same manner, Bush shouldn’t call Trump a “jerk” or a “chaos candidate,” Kasich shouldn’t be comparing him to Nazi’s, and Rubio shouldn’t be saying he’s “touchy and insecure.” And now that they have gotten mud all over them, there is a mounting pressure for Ted Cruz to jump in the pen.  They took the bait, they contributed to the fracturing of Republican voters and are frustrated that Cruz simply disagrees with him.

And that was the whole point of the 11th Commandment to begin with.  According to Shirley, Reagan didn’t come up with the idea: “The 11th Commandment was created in 1966 by Gaylord Parkinson, the Golden State’s Republican Party chairman. After the bloodbath in the 1964 California primary between Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater and New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, Parkinson was trying to put the party back together.”

“Reagan adopted it fully that same year,” wrote Shirley. “During the 1966 primary, Reagan’s moderate GOP opponents savaged him, calling him ‘temperamentally and emotionally upset’ and suggesting that his switch from Democrat to Republican ‘might indicate instability.’ Reagan did not attack them in the same manner.”

Some would point to Cruz’s taped comments about the race in which he said that he believed that having your “finger on the button” goes to the strength and judgment of a candidate, and thought the question would be “challenging” for Trump or Carson, as an attack.  But truly, he didn’t question their judgment, but pointed out that voters would have to make their own decision as to what they thought about it.

But it was the establishment who used the 11th commandment against Reagan when he decided to challenge Gerald Ford in 1976, and they changed the meaning, and there’s a good reason why.

If pointing out the differences in the approach to any policy or issue can be shut down by invoking, of all people, Ronald Reagan, then the American people won’t get to hear how each candidate differs, and that helps candidates with bad records.  But if everyone’s records were fair game, the most honest and consistent conservative would have the best chance of winning over primary voters, while leaving the door open for former primary opponents to unite during a general election.

Now, we haven’t been hearing much about the 11th commandment so far during this race, because nobody is pointing to it in order to shut down debate. But it is being employed, deftly and expertly, by Ted Cruz.

[Isara]

"But the meaning of the 11th commandment is often blurred, mostly because many use it as an easy way out, sort of like the left accuses people of racism—as a shutdown of debate."

Craig Shirley, has many times explained the true meaning of the commandment: "The commandment never meant that one Republican could not criticize the policies or philosophies of another Republican. It meant only that one could or should not engage in personal attacks on another Republican."

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

THE REAL HILLARY CLINTON: Episode #6 - Defiling the White House Christmas Tree

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/812710/posts

[This is the last Christmas to remind people before race.]

[CincyRichieRich]

If you criticize someone who is labeled as a republican, but in fact is a rino, then, are you really criticizing a republican or simply outing a liar, fraud, duplicitous person?

Well, there are plenty of them in our party; that’s why it is down to Ted and Trump.

[C210N]

It's that his disagreement was laced with biting sarcasm...

Sarcasm would not be "biting" unless said sarcasm had traction and was thoroughly backed by substance.

[TBP]

And a lot of his rivals seem to find it annoying (including Trump.)

[FourPeas]

Well reasoned piece. Does a good job trying to explain part of Cruz’s strategy.

[Undecided 2012]

actually that may prove Obama is a Muzzy, every year they go through the motions of decorating a “holiday” tree, then every year they skip town until after New Years so they don’t have to see it or partake in any festivities.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Actually, Hillary’s porno-defiled Christmas tree was during her husband’s administration:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/812710/posts

As First Lady, she needed to beautify the White House for families — CHILDREN concluded. She laughed over peoples’ reactions.

For those who are skeptical, the photo of that tree — with children looking at it if fuzzy memory serves — is on the dust cover of Gary Aldrich’s ‘Unlimited Access’.

Even most gutter whores are morally superior to Hillary. Sure, Trump reportedly got a little crude yesterday, but Hillary is NO LADY — she KNEW that little children were going to see that defiled Christmas tree. It just made her laugh.

[Regarding Obama, sure he’s anti-Christian — called us ‘bitter clingers’. He recently tried to walk it back, but the words are self-evident ‘clinging to their guns and religion’. And I have trouble trying to convince myself he’s not an al tikkaya/al takkaya muslim. Hilllary is every inch of her anti-Christian as well. And they didn’t like each other despite that commonality.]

[combat_boots]

H3llary’s condom Christmas tree: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/gary-aldrich-on-the-clintons-christmas-tree

[combat_boots]

In case that page disappears:

Hillary Clinton’s ‘Condom’ Christmas Tree

Most people have heard the story of the Clintons’ x-rated tree decorations during the Christmas of 1994.

The story originated primarily from Gary Aldrich’s book, Unlimited Access. In some ways it is better and some ways worse than it is commonly remembered.

If you have not had a chance to read Mr. Aldrich’s book, or if you have forgotten the details, here are some of the more relevant excerpts from pp 101-6:

“Good Morning, Mrs. President”

… Just before Decorating Saturday, I ran into some of my old team members from the previous Christmas…

“You aren’t missing anything. You wouldn’t believe what they’re calling ‘Christmas decorations’ this year. It’s unbelievable. In fact, it’s downright disgraceful. There’s this one ornament, a clear lucite block, and inside are some old computer parts, and that’s a Christmas ornament, see?”

My other former team member chimed in, “Yeah, it’s true, and there’s all of this carved dark wood, not resembling much of anything—just sticks and twigs tied together. They look like fertility gods or something. We can’t tell.”

“Yeah, and there are pots, and carvings, some that look kind of obscene, and boxes, but nowhere can we find anything that resembles Christmas. Nowhere.”

“And have you seen Bertha?”

Yes, I had seen Bertha—big, ebony Bertha. Bertha was a statue that Hillary had selected to be placed along the public tour line. About eleven other examples of modern art were in the Jackie Kennedy Garden (the companion garden to the Rose Garden). Bertha was twice life-size and was very naked. In addition, Bertha had enormous buttocks, far out of proportion to the rest of her body.

That is why the permanent White House staff named her Bertha, which was short for “Bertha’s Big Butt.” This is what the first lady considered appropriate for the eyes of the thousands and thousands of visitors who daily toured the White House—Bertha’s Big Butt…

Fast forward to one year later. Again I was asked to help decorate White House. I didn’t get it. There wasn’t much to do. The Clintons didn’t like tinsel—not one tree had any tinsel—nor was there any snow, nor did there seem to be much for decorators to do…

Perhaps Hillary didn’t trust us. She had, in fact, “hired” some volunteers of her own. While in New York, Hillary had seen an office she thought was well-decorated. She ordered the staff to find the decorators and bring them down.

The permanent White House staff wasn’t wild about this idea, but, after all, it was the first lady’s show, and everyone understood that it would be done the way Hillary Clinton wanted it done…

The GSA, the Park Service, and the Residence maintenance staff had erected all the trees. Some staff were on high ladders, hanging evergreen garlands. We gathered around folding tables to unpack the ornament boxes.

It took about ten seconds to get the first reaction. “What in the world?”

Then another. “What the hell?”

Then another. “Look at this thing! What is it?”

“Hillary’s ornaments is what!”

From one end of the hall to the other, about forty people were picking up these “things,” staring at them, turning them around, trying to figure them out or stifle their embarrassed laughter. I turned to one of my team members. “What are these things?”

“I heard the theme is The Twelve Days of Christmas, as interpreted by art students from around the country. Hillary sent a letter out just two months ago, really late actually, asking budding artists to send in an interpretation of The Twelve Days of Christmas, and this is what they came up with.”

I couldn’t believe what I was looking at. “This stuff is just childish garbage! We can’t hang this stuff on any White House Christmas tree! This is a bad joke.”

“Gary, the orders from the First Lady’s Office are to hang these. It’s what she wants, so we have to hang them. Anyway, many of them are from ‘blue ribbon’ art schools, as designated by the Secretary of Education. The whole administration has a stake in this.”

“Well, if this is blue ribbon, then we’re in serious trouble, educationally.” I pulled out one ornament that was five real onion rings (five golden rings) glued to a white styrofoam tray, with a hook attached to the back so it could be hung. But where? Maybe in Clinton’s bedroom so he could rip off a midnight snack?

I was disgusted, but some of it was actually pretty funny.

“Gary, come here, look at this!” It was a mobile of twelve lords a-leaping. They were leaping all right. The ornament consisted of tiny clay male figurines. Each was naked and had a large erection. My friend said, “Whoops!” and he dropped it on the floor. Then, “Oh, no,” as he stomped on it. He joked, “Man, I hope I don’t get in trouble with Hillary for that!”

Some of the ornaments were silly and some were dangerous, like the crack pipes hung on a string. We couldn’t figure out what crack pipes had to do with Christmas no matter how hard we tried, so threw them back in the box. Some ornaments were constructed of various drug paraphernalia, like syringes, heroin spoons, or roach clips, which are colorful devices sometimes adorned with bird feather and used to hold marijuana joints.

Two turtle doves became two figurines that had the shells of turtles but the heads of birds; there were many of these. Four calling birds were—you guessed it—birds with a telephone, and there were at two miniature phone booths with four birds inside using the telephone. There was a partridge in a pear, without the tree—a clay pear with a partridge head sticking out of it. Three French hens were French kissing in a menage a trois. So many of the ornaments didn’t celebrate Christmas as much at they celebrated sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Several of the birds had dark glasses and were blowing saxophones…

I went over to one of the tables I hadn’t looked at yet. What’s this? Of course. Two turtle doves, but they didn’t have shells this time—they were joined together in an act of bird fornication.

I picked up another ornament that was supposed to illustrate five golden rings. One of the male florist volunteers grabbed my arm and laughed and laughed…

I was holding were sex toys known as “cock rings”—and they had nothing to do with chickens.

Another mystery ornament was the gingerbread man. How did he fit into The Twelve Days of Christmas? Then I got it. There were five small, gold rings I hadn’t seen at first: one in his ear, one in his nose, one through his nipple, one through his belly button, and, of course, the ever-popular cock ring.

I couldn’t believe the disrespect that these ornaments represented. Many of the artists invited to make and send something to hang on the tree must have had nothing but disgust, hatred, and disrespect for the White House and the citizens of this country, a disgust obviously encouraged by the first lady in the name of artistic freedom…

Here was another five golden rings ornament—five gold-wrapped condoms. I threw it in the trash. There were other condom ornaments, some still in the wrapper, some not. Two sets had been “blown” into balloons and tied to small trees. I wasn’t sure what the connection was to The Twelve Days of Christmas. Condoms in a pear tree? …

Hillary’s social secretary, Ann Stock, came down, carefully looked at the tree and its decorations and pronounced it “perfect” and “delightful.” …

Lovely, no?

So “uplifting.”

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, December 19th, 2007. Comments are currently closed.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Thank you! What a great Christmas gift.

[Dubious grin.]

Merry Christmas, and FRegards ....