Ted Cruz & the Texas “Too-Step”

Senator Ted Cruz, previously a little-known mid-level official in Rick Perry's steamroller political machine in Texas, has emerged in a "shot through the cannon" fashion due to his brash style and crisp, controversial politics.

Supporters love him. They like his "take no prisoners" style. They applaud his self-confidence, his direct accusatory wording, his demands, his brashness and fearlessness, his willingness to take on the pillars of power, and his polished dress style and manner of speaking. They admire his rise from an immigrant family to the halls of power, his intelligence and accomplishments at the most exclusive universities in the land

Detractors describe him as upbraiding, nasty, nitpicking, grandstanding, and polarizing. They abhor his browbeating and "all or nothing" positions. He's seen as intransigent. Cruz first attracted attention as a firebrand at Chuck Hagel's confirmation hearing when the senator shocked nearly all of Washington with a hectoring accusation that Hagel, a decorated Viet Nam veteran, was "corrupted by foreign influences" that were never specified, earning the newcomer a stern rebuke from Senator John McCain.

Let me share a story regarding President Obama's second inauguration.  A friend of mine, a progressive democrat and big fan of the President, wanted very much to attend the inauguration. He/she (gender will be protected) stayed at the area home of a close relative, with whom he/she had grown up. The relative works in a responsible position in the inner circles of Republican Washington, and is privy to the candid thinking of Texas officials in particular.

He/she told my friend that Senator Cruz is feared by the Texas delegation, which acknowledges that the senator is keenly intelligent, shrewd, and a world-class debater who is quick on his feet and on the attack. They consider Cruz less interested in getting things done than he is in attracting individual attention for himself. He has alienated senior members of both parties, and now some of his most strained and damaged relationships are inside the Republican party. He appears untroubled at all by this, and has been elevated to an individual darling of the most strident wing of the party and the blogosphere, surrounded by sycophants, hearing how wonderful he is. He is a champion for anti-government voices who argue for opposition for opposition's sake, and who put ideological purity before solutions. Some Republicans believe that Cruz's "shut the government down" antics along with anti-women and anti-immigrant positions may damage the party such that the Republicans may not win a presidential election for another decade, primarily supported by a significant geographical region of Bible-Belt whites, along with a narrow coalition of isolationists and small-government purists.

Cruz has opposed the Violence Against Women Act, the Fair Pay for Women Act, as well as special legislation to extend aid to the victims of Hurricane Sandy. He also opposes the Immigration Reform Bill, taking the position that the proposed legislation "has immediate legalization, and border security is somehow in the future ...it's designed never to come into being." Suffice it to say that Cruz rejected the bill even though the act would require those gaining "legal residence" to pass a background check, pay a fine, and stay and work for six years before they could be considered for permanent residency. A similar clause for agriculture workers would be enabled. The "insufficient border security" provisions of the bill include $46.3 billion in addition to administration costs for the southern border alone, including hiring 19,000 additional border patrol agents and building 350 miles of additional high security fence between 2014-18. As part of this, entry/exit systems would track not only when people entered the U.S. but also then they leave. All employers must use the e-verification system for employment checks.The U.S. is becoming the international opposite of the Soviet Union, in our case taking extraordinary steps to keep people out. But for Senator Cruz, this is insufficient.

He has stated that he wants to "repeal every syllable of the Affordable Care Act," President Obama's centerpiece legislation. Yes, it's controversial and complex, yet even nearly all Republicans support the portions that prevent companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and allow children to remain on their parents' coverage policy until they are 26 years of age. In addition, they support the portion that allows four million seniors to avoid a gap in prescription and medicine coverage. In addition, the ACA is not funded by government revenues, so in a bit of illogical thinking, it is not subject to being stopped by a government shutdown threatened to prevent the program. The opposition of Republicans to health reform is not a recent phenomenon, since the party opposed both Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 when the Social Security act was amended.

Consider some facts regarding medical insurance. Overall, nearly 15% of the U.S. population has no health care insurance, foregoing defensive medicine and reacting to illness and disease when it occurs, along with injury, by treatment in the ER (which is legally mandated). Of course this is the most expensive and most inefficient procedure, reactionary and not preventative, results in significant unpaid bills written off by hospitals and insurance companies, and adds costs to all of us as a hidden tax, one that is inefficient and immoral.

Overall, a large number of the uninsured population lives in the Southeast states, southwest along the Mexican border, in large pockets in Appalachia, in northeast Texas, and in the agriculture belts of California. Ironically, the areas of the country that have the lowest uninsured populations also are the most supportive of the ACA, while the areas with the most adults and children who are uninsured are the most opposed. In Texas, nearly 25% of the population have no health insurance, including six million children, but the governor refused to set up state private health exchanges, and in fact has demanded that the people who are explaining the process and helping the uninsured access the national exchanges must receive additional training, in another way to impede the process. Yet every day, the sick and injured pile into the state's ERs and we the taxpayers foot the bill.

At this point, let me add a personal perspective gained from many years of doing "deals" in industry. In fact, my final assignments included responsibility for many legal agreements involving licensing, both technology needed by my company (Motorola) and technology that we were offering to others for strategic and financial reasons. These included simple acquisitions including Wi-Fi and Blue-Tooth technology, as well as the complex relationships with ARM, the British company prominent for embedded controllers and associated intellectual property (IP), and with so-called "standard cell family" IP, which involved getting a large number of standard logic sections and pieces, including some larger chunks, implemented in ready-to-use formats. In addition, we did a very large joint venture with a leading Japanese semiconductor company to set up a multi-billion DRAM memory chip business based in Japan, and licensed our CMOS process technology to a company in Singapore.

One thing became clear in the field of negotiating "deals:" you need a clear understanding of the "must haves" for your side, and also be able to ferret out the same for your negotiating partner. In a successful agreement, both sides complement their business and end up being stronger without hurting the other in any major way. It's important to know what you need, and what you can give up.

With that in mind, Senator Cruz's position on heath care reform is perplexing. He has asked the President to throw away the single most important thing he ran on, at least in terms of a domestic program, that being health care reforms. He demands that the President defund the ACA, or ObamaCare, in exchange to keeping the government open. This is in spite of the fact that the Democrats control the Senate and the presidency. As one Republican stated, "I can count." But Cruz and his allies seem to think this is a workable strategy, even when they should know it's the one thing Obama cannot give up. As the government shutdown continues, the news will become more and more saturated with hungry children, military widows with no monthly rent, returning veterans with no hospital beds, etc. It's an riveting, emotional scenario that will develop day by day, with more and more functions not operating. Anyone who says this is a viable approach is foolish. It's akin to a negotiator stating "You must give up the very thing that you value the most, and if you don't, then I'll shoot myself." Huh?

In Texas, we have a wonderful dance called the Texas Two-Step, in which couples gracefully rotate counter-clockwise to country tunes. But Senator Cruz is doing a dance with absurdity, one which will become a horrible albatross around both his neck and his party; it's just too much—the Texas Too-Step.

**************************************************************************************************

If you enjoy this blog, please mention it to others who may be interested.

James Kennedy George, Jr (Jim George)
Author, Reunion, a novel about relationships.

Available in  Hard Cover, Soft Cover, and all eBook formats on the Internet from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and all other Internet retailers, as well as on-order in print format from any book store. In stock at several book stores, including Book People in Austin, Texas, Tamarack on the West Virginia Turnpike, and Hearthside Books in Bluefield, West Virginia.

A number of book clubs in Central Texas have read Reunion, and/or have selected the novel for the first half of 2013. The author will be glad to attend your book club for discussions and to answer questions regarding the book as well as the publishing process. Contact him at <n3bb@mindspring.com> for additional information and scheduling.

Blog, Uncategorized
8 comments

Written by

View all posts by:

8 Responses

  1. Ben Bentzin
    Jim, I take exception with several points of your blog of October 12 on Ted Cruz. First, you state that Ted Cruz was "previously a little-known mid-level official in Rick Perry’s steamroller political machine in Texas..." Putting aside your characterization of "steamroller political machine...," the same has been said of the Obama White House, Ted Cruz never worked for Rick Perry or in his administration. Before being elected Senator, Ted Cruz worked at the Federal Trade Commission, as an Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Justice Department, and as Domestic Policy Advisor to the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign, before being appointed by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott as the first Hispanic Solicitor General in Texas. He was subsequently an attorney in private practice before being elected to the Senate last year. Ted Cruz has never been an official in Rick Perry's administration. Secondly, your statement that the entire "Texas delegation" considers "Cruz less interested in getting things done than he is in attracting individual attention for himself..." is character assassination. Your only source is an anonymous friend who stayed in the house of of an unnamed person working in the "inner circles of Republican Washington..." Some national media outlets have characterized the Texas delegation as uniformly opposing Ted Cruz, but individual members of the Texas delegation have rejected this characterization. Likewise, you offer no substantiation at all for your assertion that Ted Cruz is "surrounded by sycophants, hearing how wonderful he is..." How can you know this? I have known Ted Cruz personally for many years and found him to be an extremely intelligent, articulate, principled man guided by this own beliefs about how best to govern within the framework of our US Constitution. You articulate many policy differences with Senator Cruz. You have the right to be heard and it is through debate on policies that we arrive at good government. While I do not agree with some of your policy positions, I applaud you for participating in the national debate. However, I urge you to stick to the things you know to be facts and to statements of your own opinion. Resorting to unsubstantiated assassinations of character is unfair and reflects poorly on you and your positions. --Ben Bentzin
    Reply
    October 13, 2013
  2. Bonnie Tull
    Jim, I wholeheartedly support both your friend's and your assessment of Ted Cruz. I judge his character by what I see, and what I see is an ego driven person who, like many others of his political persuasion, lives in an alternate universe from the reality of most of us. He apparently believes the hype and lies that have been put out by mainstream media regarding the state of our economy and our environment as well as the false equality of arguments from both sides. The media fall all over themselves trying to be "fair" by giving equal weight to both sides of every issue. This is how the Republicans have been able to keep alive their global warming denierism, the denial of science to the point of absurdity, and even the denial of all statistics and evidence collected by non partisan sources within and without the government. As Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist, said, "Believing that the Earth is only thousands of years old instead of millions, is like believing that the United States is only 8 yards across." And yet, that is the kind of people that are trying to extort their wishes at the point of a gun and in the face of a national election to the contrary not to mention affirmation by the Supreme Court. Since when did a Democracy operate on rule of the minority? We have already compromised way too much with these maniacs. The sequester alone has cost us probably 2 or more percentage points in growth. The ACA (Obama was a never a strong supporter of national health care) could have been a real national healthcare plan that would have saved us needed money, but instead we have a totally capitalistic plan that leaves insurance companies in control, i.e., our healthcare is still linked to profit and not to best outcomes. Unfortunately, we cannot afford not to have health care reform, if we want to remain competitive with other economies. Why do European countries like Switzerland spend a fraction of what we do on health care with results that are staggeringly better? Not addressing the debt (largely worsened by the Bush administration) I would tell people like Ted Cruz just to examine the statistics about which Administrations have increased our deficit and which have decreased it. Historically speaking, for at least the last 30 years, it has been Democratic administrations which have lowered deficits. The problem we have now is dealing with the deficits and debt run up largely by the Bush Administration with two huge tax cuts which went overwhelmingly to the rich in the face of two unfunded and unnecessary trillion dollar wars as well as a trillion dollar unfunded drug plan. Just the interest alone from those bills is a staggering load. If they want to "fix" Social Security, just remove the contribution cap, and if they want a cheaper health care plan, just institute single pay like liberals wanted in the first place. Levy a health care tax on everyone, have the government negotiate payments, and let those who want cadillac plans buy them through the marketplace. That is what Australia does. I've lived for many years of my life raising my family in countries with socialized medicine, and I had it through the military as well. I must say that I thought it superior to what I now get in the marketplace. Americans need to become better informed before they start tooting their horns about how this is the greatest country on earth. I hate to break it to them, but there are other countries with higher standards of living than ours. On the other hand, our ignorance is leading us straight down the path to third worldom.
    Reply
    October 13, 2013
  3. Tom Dixon
    “surrounded by sycophants, hearing how wonderful he is… Hmmmmm. Not sure I agree, but good writting, indeed. Oops! do I sound like a sycophant?
    Reply
    October 13, 2013
    • James Kennedy George Jr.
      You caught me on the use of "sycophants." Others did privately. The word(s) "adherents" or "true believers"would have been more correct. JG
      Reply
      October 14, 2013
  4. Melissa
    Poppy- interesting stuff. Learned a bit about something I haven't kept up on too much. Sounds like he's exactly the type of person you do NOT want in government. Being unable to compromise and negotiate doesn't get you very far... At least from what I've learned. Meemo
    Reply
    October 14, 2013
  5. Barry Walsh
    Ted Cruz's 'heroic' stand at the WWII Memorial, 'outraged' at the government shutdown that he helped engineer, tells us all we need to know about this stuntman. He stood with Sarah Palin and the Confederate Flag wavers. Apologists for Cruz will never be able to get beyond this perception is reality moment. At his core, Cruz is a divider, and that's all we need to know about him. America does not need dividers at this time in our history. We need healers. Cruz is the farthest thing from this. Thanks for this blog.
    Reply
    October 15, 2013
  6. Juliet George McCleery
    Very well written!! This guy is dangerous. The unabashed arrogance and misogyny alone are breath-taking--like a punch in the gut, but factor in the complete lack of compassion and you get a truly scary human being. I wonder how his tune would change if it was his son coming over the border, or his daughter pregnant by a rape at 15 (God forbid). Guys like him have their own custom playbook and another set of rules for the rest of us. Let's hope that karma hurries up and gives him a taste of his own medicine sooner rather than later.
    Reply
    October 21, 2013
  7. James Kennedy George Jr.
    This blog generated by far the most comments, both here at posted directly by the writers, and by direct email to me. I'll try to summarize the direct comments, and will edit for brevity and for other, obvious reasons if you decide to plow through them. The initial comment came in from a famous attorney, and his thoughts are worth the long content. Read on, and hopefully enjoy, By WS: Got to say, I can find nothing in your recent blog w/ which to disagree (even if—as was decidedly not the case—I were reading it with a particular eye to finding grounds supporting disagreement). Your particular description has brought to mind something that a very conservative – and very, very smart—Republican colleague of mine mentioned about Sen. Cruz. The word “demagogue” took center stage in the conversation. That lead me back to some serious work I had done in college on 19th century populism (particularly the radical populism that characterized Texas at the time). That work had provided some opportunities to learn much about—and to interview children of—leaders of that movement. It was a movement that, in its easternmost edges, was the same thing that supported the rise of Huey Long. Many of the leaders of the movement--where they enjoyed recognition beyond their local environment—were what we would now recognize as demagogues. Much of their wording fit neatly into what we would now recognize as propaganda (that was a sub-element of my work in the area), with what I would call the extremity of aggressiveness in elevating [extolling] all aspects of your argument [position], on various bases, while denigrating every element of the opponent’s, also on various bases. In this way, the demagogue avoids conferring any personal respect on her opponent. In an historical context, that is quite an interesting element and it reinforces the maxim that what we now see we have previously seen. The present situation, however, is not yet history so our perspective must differ from the prior occurrences—we can do nothing about that part of history that is accomplished fact; the same is not to be said about current politics. And herein is one of the interesting and frustrating aspects of the Republican party profile in Congress—apparently the folks who are the most bothersome in any attempt to recognize that any way forward on any basis founded on a shared journey are reasonably few. ( re the reference to “shared journey”--I will not use the word “compromise”—some people think it is good and some take offense at it. Being loaded with externalities, then, the term is to be avoided at present.) The x number (maybe it’s 30, maybe more or less) in Congress seem to have no “fear” of reelection in their own districts. “Safe” districts, I guess you would call them. Lest those who oppose the policies of this cadre wring their hands about the unfairness of such a geographical boundary to districts, we cannot forget that there are “safe” districts for progressive Democrats and, in times past, those progressives have held sway in the public square—sometimes with bad results as well. So, the point of blunting the influence of people in Congress who can give voice to the theater in which Sen. Cruz engages cannot be an appeal to these 30 (or more or less) to take a “softer” or more nuanced tone in their debate. Neither can it be something that relies on these individuals believing that as an electoral matter they need to change their message or its delivery. No—the way to blunt it effectively involves a broader plane of action. In situations in which a broader constituency votes (e.g., in the case of a senate campaign) the point is to pull away the mask of a demagogue, for moderates, who otherwise might agree with something of the Tea=Party based opposition, to have the ammunition and wherewithal to act on (and to tell others about) the understanding that the approaches and policies—and their implementation-- of this outspoken “Tea party” group palpably hurts those to whom they appeal. (Here, “conservative”—whether a negative epithet or a perceived virtue—is inapposite: the Tea Party and Mr. Cruz are not conservatives. Neither are they particularly “radical” in the sense of left/right leanings. They are or can be reformers on a mission—and that reform is occasioned by a view that the political machinery has somehow been derailed by other interests. Do keep in mind that some reforming is both unnecessary and wrong-headed.) The course recommended above is, in a weird sense, “evangelism”—evangelism seeking to lead a self-described conservative or a non-thinking person to oppose wrong-headed, demagogic re-formation of institutions. (To make that work, of course, you have to avoid the pointy-headed poly syllabic expressions such as that set out above.) But that tack, if it works, can work only for a broader-constituency office, in which it is possible to move some of the electorate. In fully “safe” smaller (congressional) districts, however, it is another thing altogether. It then becomes a matter of showing that the office holder’s present voice and position is such that they can and should be marginalized. They can continue to say what they and a greater or lesser majority of their voters think may be OK for that district. But the power of that number needs to be marginalized. That seems to me to be the hardest point, but one on which people who know more about running political parties may know something. Maybe the great rank and file of the Republican party leaves the party and abandons it to the new populists. Maybe the financial infrastructure of the center of that party is strengthened. If I had the answer to such things I’d not be writing this now—but I do know that this requires a change and change requires action—and it cannot be primarily driven by people who identify themselves on the left side of the Democratic party. By RB: Great read Jim! By BM: Good to hear your "take" on Senator Cruz. By BA: You know what i think of ted cruz...f*** him. By JJ: Just read, and posted on my FB page. Really well written - good job. By PM: Jim, I have already read it, agreed wholeheartedly, and posted it on my Facebook page! By VC: Well written and very logical, Jim. By BS: YOUR BLOG IS AS FULL OF S%&T AS A CHRISTMAS TURKEY. WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE WORD FACT!! By ME: Excellent read. Thanks. TIME also had him highlighted in a recent publication and was downright scary!!!!! By BB: I've always thought of you as a thoughtful, reflective person, and I appreciate your detailed response. I read the CNN blog you referenced to me, but I didn't read anything in this blog that would be evidence that Ted Cruz is surrounded by sycophants? From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sycophant a sycophant is “a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite…” How does a group of citizens demonstrating to advocate for a belief make them sycophants? I don't consider the marchers every January at the annual MLK Day parade to be sycophants. How is this protest at the Capitol any different? Your statement that you consider Ted Cruz a populist demagogue is a matter of opinion, and you are certainly entitled to yours. How would I distinguish between a passionate advocate for a cause and a populist demagogue? If Ted Cruz is a populist demagogue, then isn’t President Obama a populist demagogue as well? http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2012/07/26/president-obama-puts-william-jennings-bryan-to-populist-shame/ There seems little doubt that congressional districts have become increasingly polarized in recent decades and that this contributes to polarized political activism. No one party deserves all the blame for the polarization of politics in America. Republican opponents of President Obama don't appear to be any more vociferous than the Democratic opponents of President Bush. With regard to congressional districts, I supported the creation of a citizen redistricting commission to establish the new Austin City Council districts and I advocate to make this a national standard. By LS: Read your comments - BRAVO! well done… Makes me worried about our country because so many have such screwed up and immoral positions! Thanks for sending it out! Thanks again for your thoughtful response to my comments. By WS: As to the political extremes (the populist or Bolshevik or other extremes that do not translate directly into evil), I shouldn’t say that I would exclude the radicals from the process altogether—marginalize, yes; exclude, no. If the extremes are indeed at the margins, then they should be given proportionate recognition—that is, marginalized. The question is how to corral an energetic but wrong-headed group. The center has much to learn from the extremes----sometimes the legitimate ideas of reform come from extremes (I would make a distinction based on legitimacy between the ideas of some reformers and those of the Tea-Party hierarchy.) But no voice should ordinarily block the entire road of an otherwise generally legitimate political system. When evil has populated those systems—or when evil characterizes the extremists--then the equation is utterly different. There is always the definitional challenge of “evil”---but as Mr. Justice Stewart remarked when writing about pornography—“I know it when I see it.” I’m sure that there is a fancy name for that. And there—in the resistance to evil, a greater stridency is required. By PC: There are many four-letter words to describe him, good not being one. I hope he sizzles in his own juices and quickly. By JM: I have read a number of articles on Senator Cruz, about his up bringing , education and beliefs. If memory serves me well, I believe he was a lobbyist for Iran in Washington D.C. . The thing I know best is that he is a devout "man of god." It is clear the Heavenly Father took special care in bringing Ted to us. I'm told three, no four Jackasses were used in the development of Mr. Cruz. It is important that our Lord get it right as with all things he does. This time He has out done Himself. By SW: I admire your willingness to write about something politically - likely you alienate 50% of your readers regardless of what you write! I suspect I did the same with my large network of friends when I ran for political office. I think the ACA add its consequences are much to complex to wax about in a short email or on a blog as you did - and I certainly don't condone what Senator Cruz is doing. I guess what troubles me the most about the ACA are its costs (2 Trillion per decade), its new taxes and its re-vamping of the insurance market unnecessarily - by defining what % of co-pay any policy must have, including out of pocket costs and the use of non-trained insurance agents to sell the product (health navigators) when an industry of insurance agents who are licensed, bonded and regulated could have been incentivized to participate in a way that was responsible in a fiduciary manner. By JS: I haven't looked at your blog but once, enough to tell me that you probably continue to support unbridled govt spending, Obamacare special exemptions for political cronies, more Obama lies like " keep your healthcare plan if you like it" (United Healthcare just dumped 1000 doctors in Ct)...and other socialized BS that makes me sick. By NS: If the stakes weren't so high, I'd enjoy laughing at Ted Cruz. Thank goodness he's not American so he can't be president. I have a neighbor who I think would consider Senator Ted to be a jerk. Yet he thinks Paul Ryan is wonderful and hopes he will run for president. I don't see much difference politically between Cruz and Ryan. Even smart people can be fooled. On second reading of your blog, I've concluded that you are commenting on Senator Cruz's personality disorder, not his politics. By CM: Cruz is the real deal!! We are working to rid the SC GOP of RINO's, e.g., Lindsey Graham. However, Lindsey has a tonof money because he likes to keep the war machine running and the hospitality folks like him because he helps supply them with cheap labor from south of the border. By SC: It brings me great joy that you have spent so much time writing down your progressive Marxist blabber. Who knows what trouble you could have created otherwise. The fact that Senator Cruz makes the likes of you go peepee in your panties only strengthens my support for him. By JE: Well done, Jim. Our Senator’s tactics are beginning to affect my attitude toward Canadians! By OH: Good blog even though I disagree about most of the things you say about Cruz....I'm a big fan and think he is a breath of fresh air in screwed up Washington, DC. Given your political views, and also knowing you are a smart guy in most areas, I have a few questions for you which I would like to really understand the other perspective. Please note that I am also planning to send these questions to Lloyd Doggett, who I have communicated with in the past and I congratulate and thank him for communicating with me. Here are the questions: > When will the debt become a problem for Democrats (and also a bunch of Republicans)? We are currently hitting $17B, what number will alarm them? $20B, $30B, $100B what number? Even if we balance the budget (if we ever get one..and to balance we'll have to cut spending by 1/3 !!!!) we'll just quit deficit spending and STILL have a debt of $17B and they aren't even talking about balancing spending to income. > Does the debt really matter? Is it just a number that we plan to disregard? Does the government plan to, by edict, just say it's zero one day and start over? Why don't we see any concern from most people? > Does the debt not matter since we can just print money all day long? > Most in Washington, especially the President, act like it's a "don't care, doesn't matter". PLEASE tell me why and I'll quit worrying about it like all of them. It's a question I can't answer and don't seem to be able to get answers from others. Please enlighten me. Hope you are all doing well.Take Care By MC: I liked the blog post and wanted to commend you on it. It is good to see that others can see an emerging “Baby Joe” McCarthy. The real questions to me are: how did this wingnut ever get elected and how will he ever be re-elected? Thanks again for the article. By LM: Excellent blog. It puts in perspective. We all have to reach compromises every day of our lives, in business, with our families, with our friends, and the best deals are the win-win. He is delusional, and is creating so many problems for the whole country. Many republican friends have told me that he is their hope to get the latino vote, but I am latino, and I did not vote or him, and I know that he doesn't represent the majority of latino votes, because his background is very different from the most latinos, and being of Cuban origin, his entry into the US was favored as compared to most latinos. He will not deliver the Latino vote, and his opinions and votes show that he is hurting the chances of the Republicans. He will pay for it in the polls, not perhaps in Texas, but he will alienate many independent voters in other states. What are the Republicans thinking? Is John Boehner completely scared? Why? to hurt the country so much because he might lose the Speaker position is unthinkable. They don't have a plan. Obamacare is law, it is far from perfect, but it is a start, and like most of this programs it needs time and modifications to get it to improve. It was approved by Congress, upheld by the Supreme Court, and to want to scrap it completely is lunacy. Your comments are right on track, but I wanted to give you the Latino perspective from my side. By MF: I enjoyed the Ted Cruz post; you nailed the problem. By JR: Jim, well written. By SO: You say it a lot nicer than I do. Too bad we can't impeach the guy. He's scary!!! By JM: Very well written!! That guy is dangerous. The unabashed arrogance and misogyny alone are breath-taking--like a punch in the gut, but factor in the complete lack of compassion and you get a truly scary human being. I wonder how his tune would change if it was his son coming over the border, or his daughter pregnant by a rape at 15 (God forbid). Guys like him have their own custom playbook and another set of rules for the rest of us. Let's hope that karma hurries up and gives him a taste of his own medicine sooner rather than later. By MR: Agree By BG: I read your blog about Ted Cruz, and I just wanted to say thanks for saying it. It's amazing to me that Cruz got elected, especially since his positions are not in the best interests of the very people that seem to be his most ardent supporters. Although I don't hold out a lot of hope, it would be great if you sensible Texans could get rid of him at the next chance. By MC: Very good article. By BP: I enjoyed and totally agree with this blog. That small faction can hi-jack the whole political process still boggles my mind. By SE: Your blog entries are always great to read. The portrait of Cruz is spot on. Thanks for being willing to step out on that limb. The editorial this week by conservative columnist Kathleen Parker reflects your thoughts. By JR: I thought your analogy to business negotiations was very good. Certainly it is important to know what the other side would never give up and of course Obama will never agree to kill Obamacare. #2 I pretty much try to stay away from starting discussions over political issues. I have long since learned that trying to persuade a Democrat that what is going on is crazy is a lost cause. I find it to be the height of "political dis-ingenuousness" coming from Obama who in 2006 railed against Bush when he wanted to raise the debt ceiling above $8T, who wants the Republicans to remove all spending limits for him when the debt is now nearing $20T. Do not make the assumption that I am a Republican. I have grown to be so anti government that it scares me at times. I personally don't care what it takes, but somehow this runaway government has to be shut down. I knew that what Ted was doing was would fail but I support him 100%. When congress becomes responsible again I will probable support them again, but what is going on now is off the charts in irresponsibility. In my country where a US citizen came be thrown in jail by the government with no right of counsel or trail by jury is no better than any of the tyrannical governments that we so often criticize. Who is the terrorist nation? We go around blowing up US Citizens and citizens of other countries with drones on a daily basis because we think we are right. Isn't that what "terrorist" say also? Can you even imagine what would happen if Russia decided to come into the US and stop this infighting in Washington and install their form of government. But Russia would just be trying to be the good guy, yea right. I have traveled with Americans enough to see what they are like in foreign countries and they are indeed "ugly". It just makes me sick to see that finally after all the pain and suffering we caused young men with Viet Nam we have done it again with Iraq and Afgan. The stories are just terrible. And for what reason, so that we can be an imperialist nation running around wasting our wealth and pissing off everybody on the entire planet. We have protected anything here at home. I would be the first to rise to defend this country but what is going on is purely politics and greed for the friends of the elite that we have let take over Washington. Two quotes of the century sum up this nation and where it stands. "We have to pass it in order to see what is in it." "What difference does it make" (concerning the investigation of what went wrong in Benghazi) Slowly I think this nation is waking up to the realities of what is going on. The young people are getting screwed big time and they will not take it. The generation of my kids is a bunch of sheep who have no idea how bad of shape they are in. They will all work till they drop. It is a sad situation, but as long we are so divided, I don't see much hope. I thought about what it must have been like during the Civil War, talk about divided. Americans are a strong people, but in reality we are are a stubborn and ignorant people, who have no ability to understand what is really the right thing to do for themselves or the country. How else can anyone explain why we let a group of internationals take flying lessons in 747's who openly said they had no interest in learning to land or take off. How else can one explain how Madoff was not caught when the case was layout over and over how what he was doing was not possible. Sorry for the rant, but maybe this will help to explain some of your feedback. I am guessing you don't agree with me, but don't feel that you have to convince me other wise.
    Reply
    January 7, 2014

Leave a comment