Posted on 02/19/2016 9:33:47 PM PST by joanie-f
Debate Performance Cannot Overshadow Decades of Personal History
One of the aspects of the current campaign climate that I find deeply discouraging is the fact that the majority of the American electorate spends little or no time learning about the candidates in the weeks and months leading up to the primaries, and they apparently spend little or no time during non-election years paying attention to the roles that American politicians, and would-be candidates, play in events and policymaking that are happening both in America and elsewhere around the globe.
One of the shocking and disturbing ramifications of that sad state of affairs is that, for example, in the twenty-four hours leading up to the recent New Hampshire primary, a full 50+ percent of republican and independent voters had not yet decided for whom they were going to cast their ballots.
Every remaining candidate in the republican race has a resume consisting of decades of revealing statements and actions that define his or her character, integrity, accomplishments, honesty, positions on public policy, and the depth and consistency of all of the above. Yet the citizenry either has so little knowledge of those essential prerequisites, or so little interest in them, that a single 'poor performance' in a single public debate can often threaten to derail a candidate's hope of claiming the nomination. And a 'poor performance' can be defined as anything as superficial as appearing tired, or too argumentative, or too repetitive, or not sufficiently charismatic, or simply making a single misstatement.
Let's take the example of Ted Cruz. (Disclaimer: I am an ardent Ted Cruz supporter, thus the choice of him as my example. If you would like the example at hand to be another candidate, then write your own essay.)
Flippant sarcasm aside, let's look at just a very cursory summary of Cruz's resume:
Ted Cruz graduated cum laude, with a B.A. in Public Policy, from Princeton. While there, he won many prestigious national debate awards. He then attended Harvard Law School, graduating magna cum laude with a J.D. degree. He was an editor of the Harvard Law Review and executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. While at Harvard he received many awards and accolades, including being dubbed by Professor Alan Dershowitz (certainly no fan of conservative politics), 'off the charts brilliant.'
He served as a law clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, after which he accepted a position with a private law firm, and in that position was instrumental in drafting legal arguments for presentation before both the Florida and U.S. Supreme Courts.
Some of Cruz's public career assignments included serving as a director of the Federal Trade Commission, as associate Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice, as domestic policy advisor to President George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign, as Solicitor General of Texas, and as Chairman or Vice Chairman of the following U.S. Senate committees: Commerce Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, Judiciary Committee on Oversight, Federal Rights and Agency Activities, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
During his service as Solicitor General of Texas, he argued before the U.S. Supreme Court nine times, winning five of those cases. He has authored seventy U.S. Supreme Court briefs and argued forty-three times before the courts, nine of those times before the Supreme Court. He has appeared in that capacity before the Supreme Court more than any other member of congress has.
In academia, he served as an adjunct law professor, teaching Supreme Court legislation, at the University of Texas.
Cruz's legal credentials and accomplishments have been lauded by many, and he has been recognized for his efforts by having been named one of the fifty best litigators under the age of forty-five in America, one of the fifty most influential minority lawyers in America, and one of the twenty-five greatest Texas lawyers of the past quarter century.
Since his election to the senate in 2012, Cruz has sponsored no fewer than twenty-five of his own bills on issues ranging from the repeal of Obamacare to reforming campaign finance regulations.
Whether or not one agrees with Ted Cruz's conservative credentials, the above abbreviated resume is the kind of information that any informed voter should have at his or her disposal, not only regarding Ted Cruz, but regarding all viable candidates for the presidency of the United States. I happen to believe that Cruz's resume is stellar, especially as compared to most others seeking to become the leader of the free world. Other citizens may hold a different opinion, but each of us needs to know precisely what each candidate has accomplished in his or her adult life, by what means he or she has achieved those accomplishments, and whether his or her vision for America is consistent with that record of behaviors and accomplishments.
My question is, how many potential voters, in both the primary and general elections, know any of the above about Senator Cruz? How many potential voters have researched and are aware of at least a similarly cursory resume about each of the other candidates? If the answer to both questions is 'very few,' then relatively meaningless things such as two-hour debates, and thirty-second sound-bite political advertisements, develop the dangerous power to become inordinately more influential than they have any right to be in a free republic.
I ask all of you, when you watch the next debate, to take note of your positive or negative reactions to each of the candidates. Then expend the time and energy required to research and delve into that candidate's decades of genuine personal history. Then ask yourself whether that positive or negative reaction to a possibly offhand comment made in a single evening meshes well with what you have learned about that candidate's history. If it does not, then chalk your debate impression up to the fact that that candidate had an especially good, or an especially bad, day. We all have them. Do not allow a one-minute glowing promise, or a one-minute slip of the tongue, or a few drops of perspiration, to eclipse a lifetime of achievements, or a lack thereof.
Equally importantly, if you see a political advertisement that claims that a candidate did something that would be deemed distasteful to most voters, research that claim. If you discover it to be a lie or a blatant exaggeration, allow that to reflect on the person making the claim rather than on the person being criticized. If you discover it to be a true representation, add that representation to your own personal research.
More than a decade before America was even formed as a free republic, John Adams wrote, 'I must judge for myself, but how can I judge, how can any man judge, unless his mind has been opened and enlarged by reading? A man who can read will find ... rules and observations that will enlarge his range of thought and enable him the better to judge who has and who has not that integrity of heart and that compass of knowledge and understanding which form the statesman.'
I strongly suspect that neither Adams nor any of the other Founders would today consider the watching of a few debates, or a few political advertisements, the kind of vigilant research that will provide the American electorate with sufficient evidence to judge who has and has not that integrity of heart and that compass of knowledge to become the leader of the free world at this watershed time in the history of both our nation and the world. I pray that the average American voter shows a willingness to expend the necessary time and energy, over the next few months, so that debates and political advertisements will serve as only one or two of many tools they use in their evaluation of the genuine character, integrity, accomplishments and vision of each potential candidate. Our Founders would ask no less, and our republic's very existence depends on it.
These people put together a pretty good summary:
Ping for comment, criticism or additional ideas.
Bottom line.....I think Cruz ill gotten win in Iowa will haunt him the remainder of his days.
Sure, why not:
Ted was originally my guy. I donated four times to his presidential campaign, and only stopped donating when he voted for TPA. In addition, I voted for Ted for U.S. Senate, in the primary, the run-off, and the general elections in Texas.
So why don't I support Ted now?
TPA
Corker bill
H1-B visas
"Poison Pill" amendment tickery
Teddy bears and soccer balls for illegals
Glenn Beck already swore him in as President
Married to Goldman Sachs
Robert Mercer
Wants to have a conversation about illegal invaders
Homo mega-donors
"NY values"
Me too!
Canadian born (not NBC)
Career government employee
Freshman Senator, wet behind the ears
Iowa dirty tricks
Loans? What loans?
Preachy, not natural (a personal turn-off)
I soured on Ted for all of the reasons above.
When Trump came on the scene, he came out of the gate saying the exact things I needed to hear from a candidate. Even still, it took me a few weeks of studying the man, to give him my support for president. I’m now comfortable with that choice, and have no expectations of changing it.
I concur. I’ve been following Cruz for a few years and am very impressed with him. Cruz has what I call great brain structure.
Ditto.
There is quite a bit of helpful research material, but unfortunately, even when it is a LOCK, like John Roberts was, you never know. I think character is very important and a reasonably good education and practical background as an executive is important. I confess I do tend to rule out Senators first, unless they have some sort of executive or real world experience. Wheeler Dealers are sometimes too focused on the wheeling and dealing and take their eye off the ball. And too often, in Congress, they forget they are public servants, though less so, in my opinion, in the House.
I am undecided always, waiting for the surprises or the unknowns that can crop up. I would have been VERY unhappy if I had made mind up and worked for Ross Perot and neglected looking at the alternatives. That last minute commitment is actually more uncomfortable than being locked in and ready to dismiss any other input, which is human nature.
Bottom line, Cruz won fair and square, and no amount of sour grapes stuffed with a Trumper tantrum will change that. I guess you could switch to the liar liar, pants on fire offense from the serial prevaricator Trump for more traction. We could debate strategy and plans on how to accomplish campaign promises some day, if you can get Trump to show up.
But then Trump would have to have a plan, not just promises...
In other words, a typical politian who’s made speeches in his brief Senate career, a lifelong insider and elite who used his Ivy League education and connections to advance his very considerable ambition but who couldn’t even finish the term he was elected to before giving in to his ambition. 5 our of 9 is a pretty poor batting average but if he’s a good lawyer that’s what he should do. He sure isn’t cut out for politics where you have to actually get along with other people instead of always having to be the smartest person in the room. And it would give him a chance to work on his ethics, which are pretty shaky.
Cruz is undoubtedly a talented and smart man.
However, each time I see him - I see and hear more and more of what I hate in politics. He is starting, to me, to come off as a caricature of the slick politician. Now, he’s no Rubio when it comes to reminding me of a used car salesman, but he’s gone a lot farther in that direction than I had imagined he would.
From the tone of his fund requests, to his recent ‘embelishments’ ... it’s just leaves me feeling a bit ... off. I hope it’s just that he is getting bad campaign advice, but if that’s the case he needs to right the ship, and do so in a hurry. I still like Ted, a lot, and this country needs men like him.
Trump is green with envy. His accomplishments...?
Nice to hear a voice of sanity
around here. Hope you are well.
Your FRiend t.
I will reply at length when I get
off this cell tomorrow. t.
Excellent article!
It’s too sad that so many are LIVs and have no in depth knowledge of the candidates. That situation is what gave the US Obama.
Absolute ditto here.
Ditto.
Bottom line.....I think Cruz ill gotten win in Iowa will haunt him the remainder of his days.
**********************************
I don’t understand why so many people blame Cruz because his campaign workers passed on the information that was being reported on TV by CNN, who had received the information from someone working on Carson’s campaign?
I confess I do tend to rule out Senators first, unless they have some sort of executive or real world experience.
*********************************
So, you’re saying you just dismiss all of Cruz’ experience at SCOTUS (clerking, arguing and winning cases) the Fed Trade Comm., longest term as Solicitor Gen. of TX, etc., ....just because he’s a Senator?
Good article, but (there is always a “but”) the majority of population has a 10 minute attention span. They are products of an education system that values self esteem over reading comprehension and popularity over science. It is a little much to expect any research of candidates outside of Ellen interviews or one minute spots within the broadcast of the latest reality tv craze.
We got exactly what we pay for and wonder why things are the way they are..........
I watched most of the debates and find that more than two is a waste of time BUT, since the field was so crowded with presidential wannabe’s, at least one or two more might have been satisfactory. Noting that there were two different tiers of candidates, most in that second tier have been weeded out of the garden. There are still far too many, perhaps after the So. Carolina “test run”, there will be fewer. I hope so.
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.