David Brooks: The Brutalism of Ted Cruz

... Traditionally, candidates who have attracted strong evangelical support have in part emphasized the need to lend a helping hand to the economically stressed and the least fortunate among us. Such candidates include George W. Bush, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum.

But Cruz's speeches are marked by what you might call pagan brutalism. There is not a hint of compassion, gentleness and mercy. Instead, his speeches are marked by a long list of enemies, and vows to crush, shred, destroy, bomb them. When he is speaking in a church the contrast between the setting and the emotional tone he sets is jarring.

Cruz lays down an atmosphere of apocalyptic fear. America is heading off "the cliff to oblivion." ...

You appear to make an excellent point. It will be interesting how Cruz responds to this. But I think Brooks bias is evident in that he did not disclose what the prior convictions were.

Some detail from CNN News article:

The jury found Haley guilty of being a habitual offender and recommended a sentence of 16 1/2 years -- a recommendation that the sentencing judge followed. The judge deemed Haley a "habitual offender" on the ground that he had two prior felony convictions -- one for attempted robbery, the other for delivery of amphetamines.

Now for the fly in the ointment. Under the law, Haley was not eligible to be charged as a habitual offender, because the timing of his prior felonies did not fit the statutory requirements. Unfortunately for Haley, however, his defense lawyer at trial did not notice the problem. And apparently, neither did the prosecutors.

Could it be that Cruz knows the difference between Christian charity and liberal Socialism? One is about people having compassion for other people, and following the teachings of Jesus Christ. The other is about stealing money from people in the form of taxes, and calling the politically oriented practice of wealth redistribution charity. Liberalism doesn’t create charitable individuals. It creates thieving demographics.

Now for the fly in the ointment. Under the law, Haley was not eligible to be charged as a habitual offender, because the timing of his prior felonies did not fit the statutory requirements. Unfortunately for Haley, however, his defense lawyer at trial did not notice the problem. And apparently, neither did the prosecutors.

True; they screwed up, but didn't show active contempt for the rule of law. Cruz doesn't have that excuse -- when the matter reached his office, it was an unambiguous obvious ironclad case of "the state has no legal basis for keeping this guy in prison as long as it has, much less continuing to hold him". It's like the difference between a judge issuing a search warrant based on a distant sighting of what appear to be a marijuana patch and cops who arrive and tear up the place even after becoming perfectly well aware that the vegetation in question actually consists of tomato plants -- the former needs to be advised to be more careful next time; the latter needs to have the book thrown at them.

Brutalism....is a term...used to describe a certains style of Architecture!!

According to wikipedia:

Brutalism as an architectural philosophy was often also associated with a socialist utopian ideology, which tended to be supported by its designers, especially Alison and Peter Smithson, near the height of the style. socialist utopian ideology, ...hmmm something the “writer” at the NYT would likely be familiar with.

Mr. Brooks? thanks for uh Sharing!!

...Cruz took the case to the Supreme Court...

No he didn't. Ted Cruz was the Solicitor General of Texas at the time. In Texas, the Solicitor General works for the Attorney General. Greg Abbott, the Attorney General of Texas, is the one who filed the appeal. Ted Cruz was merely the Texas official who argued the case before SCOTUS. David Brooks is trying to fool us with a little misdirection. He's trying to lay the blame on Cruz, but at the time, Cruz was merely a medium-sized cog in the machinery.

Office of Solicitor General

Another problem with the David Brooks article is that he's trying to make people believe that Ted Cruz is the heartless brute who tried to keep an innocent man in prison. In fact, Michael Wayne Haley was a scumbag felon who discovered a small mistake in the court proceedings and tried to get his sentence overturned on a technicality.

During the penalty phase of respondent's trial, the State introduced records showing that respondent had been convicted of delivery of amphetamine on October 18, 1991, and attempted robbery on September 9, 1992. The record of the second conviction, however, showed that respondent had committed the robbery on October 15, 1991 - three days before his first conviction became final. Neither the prosecutor, nor the defense attorney, nor the witness tendered by the State to authenticate the records, nor the trial judge, nor the jury, noticed the 3-day discrepancy. Indeed, the defense attorney chose not to cross-examine the State's witness or to put on any evidence.

So because of the bizarre way the Texas law was worded, even though he had been convicted of two felonies before and this was his third strike, the second felony technically did not count because he committed the crime 3 days before he was convicted of the first felony. The Brooks article makes it seem like an innocent man was sitting behind bars, and that was not the case.

DRETKE v. HALEY

It's hard to find bad things to say about Ted Cruz. In this article, David Brooks tried and failed.

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.