Ted Cruz’s CPAC Televangelism

The Daily Beast ^ | February 26, 2015 | Olivia Nuzzi

[CatherineofAragon]

"Ted Cruz, CPAC’s favorite travelling salesman, was back and selling his favorite product: himself."

Hey, Olivia! He's likely running for president, fool---who is he supposed to sell? The other prospective candidates?

[Yaelle]

Olivia, you piece o poop, what you are describing is OBAMAS COVERAGE NOT JUST AT THE DEM CONVENTION BUT AT NATIONAL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE LEVEL.

This was CPAC. Every day for 6 years, Obama has had this kind of coverage from the national media. Tough questions? Like why do you have so many social security cards? Like, look at all these clips, mr president, where you clearly identified with Muslims. The church you went to was run by a (former) muslim and Muslims see him as muslim. Muslims see YOU as a Muslim. What about you isn’t Muslim? Why won’t you admit that the worst terrorists are Muslim? Why do all the experts say that the online copy of a mismatched birth certificate is fake? Why did you and hillary go around saying benghazi was from a video on YouTube? Why do gay guys from Chicago say they’ve given you BJs? Why do they say you smoked crack as a state senator?

Come on, even Saturday night Live in 2008 had Obamas questions at debates be things like “are you comfortable, Senator? Do you need another pillow?”

[SoConPubbie]

“How do we do that, how do we win, how do we bring back the miracle that is America? #1. We reassemble the Reagan coalition. #2. We bring together fiscal conservatives and social conservatives and national security conservatives. We stand strong for economic growth, but we also stand for life and marriage. We defend the constitutional rights, but we also stand and lead the fight against ISIS and a nuclear Iran.”

Ted Cruz Ping!

If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.

Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!

CRUZ or LOSE!

[Bob434]

thanks for posting that- I’ll post the email his office sent- it sounded like in the email he was for regulations, but not the ‘dracononian regulations’ of the obmama administration

“Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding the issue of climate change. Input from constituents significantly informs my decision-making and empowers me to better represent the state.

Many proposed legislative and regulatory remedies for climate change are draconian and would undermine job creation, raise electric rates and gasoline prices, and make American manufacturing less competitive. Ironically, they do little to reduce global production of greenhouse gases. I am committed to responsible environmental stewardship, but I cannot support measures that undermine our individual and economic freedoms by placing more control of our economy in the hands of unelected bureaucrats.

Texans have proven that we can have a strong economy and protect the environment, but they have also seen how the overbearing hand of federal environmental policy can harm jobs and opportunity. For these reasons, I oppose the proposals of President Obama, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and some in Congress to limit greenhouse gases without regard to jobs and the economy.

Thank you again for sharing your views with me. Please feel free to contact me in the future about any issue important to your family. It is an honor to serve you and the people of Texas.”

I wasn’;t too encouraged after reading that reply- sounded to me like he supports some kind of climate change/polution regulations

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

-— More than any other likely Republican presidential candidate, Cruz is a salesman. -—

So different from Mr. “Yes We Can.”

It looks like they don’t have much on Mr. Cruz.

[CA Conservative]

I wasn’;t too encouraged after reading that reply- sounded to me like he supports some kind of climate change/polution regulations

No, it actually sounds like he supports common-sense protection of the environment. I am old enough to remember the bad-old-days of the chronic smog alerts of the 70's, and I don't want to go back to that. But he says nothing in that message to support the idea that he believes in "climate change" regulations of any kind.

[2ndDivisionVet]

You don’t believe in mitigating pollution? Global Warming/Climate Change and Pollution are not necessarily the same thing. The smog in the Los Angeles area used to put me on the ground gasping during my childhood. That wasn’t some scam, that was real.

[Bob434]

[[You don’t believe in mitigating pollution?]]

Where did I say that?

[[Global Warming/Climate Change and Pollution are not necessarily the same thing. ]]

we don’t disagree there-

[[The smog in the Los Angeles area used to put me on the ground gasping during my childhood. That wasn’t some scam, that was real.]]

Never said it was-

[Bob434]

you are correct, but he makes it sound like he would support regulation that takes jobs and the economy into account- it’s not what he said that had me concerned, it is what he didn’;t say that made me uncertain of his position- I had asked him how man could be responsible when man only contributes 0.0015% CO2 (that’s the total amount of CO2 I n the atmosphere due to man- nature produces the bulk of the 0.04% - an amount so small as to be nearly zero)- I got no answer from him concerning that basic question- but rather got a response that made it SEEM LIKE he would support legislation that took jobs and economy into account- Yes, he mentioned pollution regulations as well, but made it SEEM LIKE (not yelling just stressing the point) he would also support climate change regulations as well when he said,

“For these reasons, I oppose the proposals of President Obama, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and some in Congress to limit greenhouse gases without regard to jobs and the economy.”

it just seemed to me like he implied he would support ‘sensible climate change regulation’ and my basic question to him was how man can even be responsible for climate change when 1: CO2 does not cause warming 2: CO2 rises decades AFTER warming takes place, and 3: Man’s contribution is so small that even if CO2 could cause climate change, man simply was not capable of producing nearly enough to change the climate since we only contribute 0.0015% to the total atmospheric CO2-

I had hoped I was wrong about his stance on ‘man-caused’ climate change, but his response left me with an uneasy feeling for the reasons I mentioned-