Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conservative legend Thomas Sowell turns on Ted Cruz
The Daily Caller ^ | 2-19-2014 | Jamie Weinstein

Posted on 02/19/2014 4:18:55 PM PST by servo1969

A leading tea party intellectual has turned against the tea party movement’s favorite senator.

Economist Thomas Sowell, who has long been revered among conservatives, has slammed Sen. Ted Cruz in his last two columns, accusing the Texas Republican of being self-serving and comparing him to President Obama.

“Freshman Senator Ted Cruz says many things that need to be said and says them well,” Sowell wrote in his syndicated column Tuesday, before going on to compare Cruz to President Obama. “Moreover, some of these things are what many, if not most, Americans believe wholeheartedly. Yet we need to remember that the same was true of another freshman Senator, just a relatively few years ago, who parlayed his ability to say things that resonated with the voters into two terms in the White House.”

Sowell continued, suggesting Cruz is only looking out for himself.

“Senator Ted Cruz has not yet reached the point where he can make policy, rather than just make political trouble,” Sowell wrote. “But there are already disquieting signs that he is looking out for Ted Cruz — even if that sets back the causes he claims to be serving.”

Sowell seems to have been most recently irked by Cruz’s actions surrounding the Senate vote to increase the debt ceiling. Cruz threatened to filibuster, forcing several Republicans to either vote for cloture or force a fight over the debt ceiling increase. Republican leaders were seeking to avoid such a politically-risky fight and another possible government shutdown in order to focus on the failures of Obamacare heading in to the 2014 midterm elections.

“Senator Cruz’s filibuster last year got the Republicans blamed for shutting down the government — and his threatened filibuster this year forced several Republican Senators to jeopardize their own reelection prospects by voting to impose cloture, to prevent Cruz from repeating his self-serving grandstand play of last year,” Sowell wrote in his Wednesday column. “The Republicans need every vote they can get in the Senate — plus additional votes by defeating some Democrats who are running for the Senate this fall. It can be a very close call. Jeopardizing the reelection of current Republican Senators is an act of utter irresponsibility, a high risk with zero benefits to anyone except Ted Cruz — and the Democrats.”

In his Wednesday column, Sowell also lashed out against the so-called Republican establishment.

“However unjustified Senator Cruz’s actions, the very fact that a freshman Senator can so quickly gain so many supporters, with so much enthusiasm, ought to be a loud warning to the Republican establishment that they have long been a huge disappointment to a wide range of Republican voters and supporters,” he wrote.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: cruz; obama; sowell; teaparty; tedcruz; texas; thomassowell
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-193 last
To: House Atreides
What I DID SAY, in effect, is that Sowell has (in the linked article and for God knows what reasons) begun to carry the GOPe’s water for them as he unleashed HIS attacks and accusations against Ted Cruz. And he is using what have been, in essense, GOPe and “mainstream media” talking points in their war on the Tea Party and on Ted Cruz.

OK, I am corrected - you did not call Sowell a RINO, you merely accused him of using RINO talking points. However, there are a couple of things here:

1) I'll be damned if I've ever seen any RINO compare the current government or the rise ofthe Democrats to the rise of Naziism in Germany. In fact, if anything, that is the MOST un-RINO thing anyone can do. The McCains of the world are busy telling everybody that Obama is a wonderful guy. Additionally, Sowell is AGREEING with everything that the most hardcore of us conservatives INCLUDING Cruz, have been saying, to include that Obamacare is a huge threat to our freedom. Once again, ANTI-RINO

2) Sowell's ENTIRE point, that, as I said before, I don't necessarily agree with, is that Cruz's scorched earth policy could have exactly the opposite effect of his stated goals. While Sowell doesn't disagree with what Cruz is out there saying, Sowell is worried that Cruz's actions will actually help the Democrats (aka communist totalitarians) consolidate power before we can reform the Republicans to do anything about it. He says this explicitly. NOWHERE, at NO TIME, does Sowell defend RINOs, or defend the status quo. He is simply being a pragmatist. He wants the Dems out, he wantsthe Constitution restored, and he thinks Cruz's way might get in the way of that. The RINOs don't give two s***s about restoring Constitutional government.

The ONLY reason that I don't agree with Sowell here is because he is discounting one thing that Americans have that the pre-Nazi Germans didn't - a s***load of guns and (for many) the will to use them, and I WELCOME a civil war, if that's what it takes. Sowell appears to be thinking that if the communist Dems consolidate their power, it's over, whereas I think it is just beginning. But then again, I'm probably nuts.

Sowell may not have actually done much, in a physical sense, to direct this country, but in terms of his loyalty to American ideals and conservative principles, if you disparage Thomas Sowell, then as far as I'm concerned you might as well bbe taking a dump on George Washington.

Hopefully, that clears it up for you.
181 posted on 02/20/2014 12:41:41 PM PST by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
1) I didn't say put party over everything. When you have a viable (key word) alternative, I'll vote for it.

2) I know it's not libertarians. It's me, too. But structurally we are a two party system in America. If you need to understand why that is, you can read the chapter in my "Seven Events" on how Martin Van Buren created the party structure. We can ONLY be a two-party structure. So, to replace the GOP (as the Whigs were replaced) you have to have an equally powerful force to step in. I'm all for the Tea Party being that force, but so far, it isn't there yet. And then, as soon as we elect "Tea Party" people---Rubio, Paul---half the people here think they are "RINOs." So it's a serious problem.

182 posted on 02/20/2014 1:26:37 PM PST by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: LS

That’s an understatement of the problem. “Tea Party” is not merely what one calls oneself. Rubio demonstrated he rode in on the bandwagon with his support for amnesty. It may be a “devil you don’t know” situation with candidates that pander to the Tea Party to get elected—but that shows what the electorate wants, versus what the establishment wants.

It isn’t the people that want to eliminate the two-party system, but the two parties themselves.


183 posted on 02/20/2014 1:33:57 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides
I don't doubt that Sowell has "turned."

I like Cruz's tactics, but I think any objective person would have to say it's entirely unproven as to whether they are effective or not. It's certainly not obvious. Since Cruz engineered the shutdown, we lost one governor's race that was entirely winnable---and some polls show that it was due in large part to the shutdown. We won a governor's race we didn't care about. So the net is, the worth of Cruz's tactics have yet to be proven.

It's entirely possible that the very thoughtful Sowell thinks that the evidence is on the side of harming rather than helping.

It's the same debate people have about the value of Palin's endorsement of a candidate. I think the record in the last primary season was mixed. Some of those she supported won, some didn't.

At any rate, it doesn't matter: for Cruz to BE successful at being a leader, he has to at least convince a majority of Republicans that he IS successful, and so far that hasn't happened. I wish it had, but I know enough (as does Sowell) not to confuse wishes with reality.

184 posted on 02/20/2014 1:34:23 PM PST by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Well, historically we have had two parties meld into one. They were called the "democratic republicans" from 1816-1828. Second, it kind of dodges the issue to say that we have "Tea Party" candidates but once in offcie 2/3 of them turn out not to support the Tea Party agenda. So this is not so much a GOP problem as it is a vetting problem, and there the problem is with the voters. The Tea Party has put up some real losers, and has also put up some supposedly good candidates who joined the other side once in power. Rather than blame the Republicans, I blame the Tea Party for not doing a better job of vetting people before supporting them.

At any rate, we will never have a critical mass for change if half the people WE put in (not all the voters, but us) end up as quasi-Dems.

185 posted on 02/20/2014 1:38:55 PM PST by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

To me having a sayso in the dissemination of information
to the masses is key. Establishment Republicans are guilty
of being afraid of what the MSM says about them. But the
Tea Party and their supporters are guilty of pretending
that the MSM does not exist or that the MSM has no
influence. The Conservative movement and the Conservative
Lite movements take on each other but not the real enemy,
the media. A pox on both their damnned houses.


186 posted on 02/20/2014 1:41:36 PM PST by Sivad (NorCal red turf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

Comment #187 Removed by Moderator

Comment #188 Removed by Moderator

bkmk


189 posted on 02/20/2014 4:16:18 PM PST by AllAmericanGirl44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: LS
I like Cruz's tactics, but I think any objective person would have to say it's entirely unproven as to whether they are effective or not.

Clearly it's the GOPe tactics that have been a failure. And Sowell agrees.

If one reads the article to the end one can see that Sowell doesn't like Boehner's and and the GOPe tactics and he ultimately blames them.

(Excerpt)

Then he blame the GOPe for Cruz.

(Excerpt)


190 posted on 02/26/2014 11:04:14 AM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

Not discussing the GOP elites. The question is whether or not Cruz’s tactics have been effective, and I think to be a true leader he will have to not only BE effective but be perceived as being effective. That’s sometimes a harder trick. Right now, though he has to prove that his tactics work, and we’ll get a sense of that in the upcoming election.


191 posted on 02/26/2014 3:20:36 PM PST by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: LS
Not discussing the GOP elites. The question is whether or not Cruz’s tactics have been effective...

Sowell was taking about the tactics of both Cruz and the GOP elites. He clearly complained about the tactics of both.

As I said, it's the GOPe tactics that have been a failure. About Cruz his tactics and what you said, sure there is no guarantee that Cruz's tactics will work, but we already know what doesn't work.

192 posted on 02/26/2014 4:18:25 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

You’re right, we know constant conciliation and compromise don’t work. That doesn’t necessarily mean that Cruz’s scorched earth works either. Reagan didn’t believe in either approach. I think Cruz will come around, especially as he gets experience-—and I don’t mean being bought off, but rather learning whose buttons to push, when.


193 posted on 02/27/2014 5:51:21 AM PST by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-193 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson