Ted Cruz: An Uncanny Valley Bag of Evacuation Tries To Sell Jan. 6 as Terrorism

 

Today, it is clear Sen. Ted Cruz decided he is running for president. He thought that by showing up to this Jan. 6 shammitte and calling what happened a terrorist attack, it would boost his chances. This kind of idiot miscalculation shows he is clearly a graduate of the Ivy League. This level of miscalculation betrays that Cruz is nothing but a worthless, sleazy politician with a presentation that is as unnerving as 911 phone call recordings. He doesn’t care about the base, and this has been clear from so many leaders of the Republican Party. Look at Rep. Dan Crenshaw. He was pushing a bill the other day that is nothing but giveaways to big tech. He fights for them and not the base that is perennially abused by these trash companies. Crenshaw is nothing more than Sen. Lindsey Graham with an eye patch.

They did not recover so much as a plastic butter knife from that so called “insurrection.” Former President Donald Trump offered to shore up the National Guard and the Capitol Police, and the mayors of the District of Columbia both said no! Why are we pretending this was a terrorist attack? Then there is this.

We have known for a long time that there was no coordination. It was an uncoordinated terrorist attack? How does that work? A bunch of random people from all over the country all decided individually they would do acts of terror with no weapons to achieve their shared political objective. This is why former President Barack Obama was so intent on keeping the 2012 Benghazi attack a spontaneous demonstration. You see, Democrats get to call rockets launched at our embassy by Al Qaeda and U.S. Navy SEALs and an ambassador murdered “spontaneous demonstrations.” A bunch of terrorists were randomly walking with rocket launchers near our embassy on the totally random date of 9/11 and murdered our personnel. Spontaneous demonstration! A bunch of people wandered around the capital for a couple hours and didn’t bring so much as a water pistol with no coordinated premeditation. Terrorist attack!

Why isn’t the paragraph above the line endlessly repeated by the GOP? Why doesn’t the GOP endlessly call President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris terrorist enablers and co-conspirators for fighting to get the Black Lives Matter and Antifa losers who burned down cities, looted, and killed bail? Our cities being burned down caused far more damage to our nation by every measure than a guy putting some mud flakes kicked off from his sneakers on top of Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s desk.

And why are the Democrats doing this? Why are they trying to sell Jan. 6 way past its expiration date as an issue anyone cares about? Because they have no agenda. They have no president. They have no accomplishments. They have nothing! So, they are running on if you vote for the GOP, you are a terrorist like the terrorists who caused Jan. 6. That is the only reason the Democrats are milking this until election day. And what does Cruz do? Yeah, it was a terrorist attack. I sound sober and reasonable, independents! Vote for me! No thanks. And the only reason we have to put up with this nonsense is because of the GOP and politicians like Cruz.

Imagine if we had a real party that was investigating Democratic National Committee involvement in the riots. Imagine if we had a real party that was not interested in letting Democrats get away with calling Al Qaeda launching a rocket and murdering one of our top representatives a spontaneous demonstration but Grandma Jo a terrorist! It would be a much different situation. Where are the state GOP reps launching committee investigations into DNC participation in and incitement regarding their cities in their states being burned down? Why aren’t the media’s texts being subpoenaed during those dog days of summer by state committees? Let us get a look at what real incitement looks like leading up to election day. Let us get a gander at what real coordination looks like in order to drive a left-wing narrative on TV about Trump.

We put up with all the indignity of the Democrats because we have a party that routinely will never punch back and punch back hard. The Democrats would not dare pull this kind of crap if they knew they would get it back tenfold. They do know they will get guys like Cruz who will fan the flames of their narrative and give them legitimacy to keep their strategy going as best they can. What they should get is committee investigations launched against the DNC in every GOP-controlled chamber where there was a hint of rioting or political violence in the name of left-wing causes. But the DNC will never get that as retaliation. They know it. And so we the base have to put up with all of it. I am a Texan, and I will never vote for Ted Cruz ever again.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 63 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    This frikkin guy…

    • #1
  2. DonG (CAGW is a hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a hoax)
    @DonG

    Texas needs 2 new Senators.    Crenshaw is funded by Twitter C-suite and he plays the tune they pay for.

    • #2
  3. Victor Tango Kilo Member
    Victor Tango Kilo
    @VtheK

    By some technical definition within the law, there is a way to define the events of January 6 as terrorism, even if it is a huge stretch. Sen. Cruz has a right to his opinion, but I think most normal people … and I must emphasize *normal* people — would think putting a riot/protest where the only people killed were protesters and the damage was considerably less than what goes on when the local roundball squadron wins an NBA championship — into the same bucket as 9-11 makes no sense. Especially since this same Government has decided there was no “terrorism” when Nadal Hassan murdered 13 people in the name of Allah in the Senator’s home state of Texas. (“Workplace violence,” the Army called it.) 

    • #3
  4. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    I saw Cruz’s comments earlier today and was shocked. He looked and sounded like a bearded Mitt Romney or heterosexual Lindsey Graham.

    • #4
  5. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    I saw Cruz’s comments earlier today and was shocked. He looked and sounded like a bearded Mitt Romney or heterosexual Lindsey Graham.

    Laughed out loud at that, but seriously, I thought Cruz and Crenshaw were two we could count on. I guess it’s another ride on The King’s Elevator. 

    • #5
  6. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    This is it. This is the split that has fully formed in the GOP. Cruz has chosen badly. For himself and for the country. 

    You know, sometimes I think DJT really was just a clown as some of these people called him, and with no experience in government, never having run a single political campaign, comes in and absolutely smokes these pathetic losers in the GOP and in the Democrat Party and media. Then, even after the rogue intel agencies try to frame him, and the full power of the lying media goes after him relentlessly, along with the entire Democratic Party and traitorous, petty and greedy Bush Republicans embedded everywhere, he’s still the best President conservatives ever had  – to include Reagan I could argue.

    So Trump pulled their pants down and exposed their fake genitalia. They didn’t ever want anyone to know they were transitioning – not yet anyway. He exposed their incompetence. Of course these frauds will hate him.

    But it’s not about Trump anyway. He was the imperfect (but great) guy we chose out of desperation after being lied to and dismissed by the likes of McCain, Romney , Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Mitch MConnell, and the entire The Bush/Clinton Political Dynasty. And these people – other than McCain who is our countries biggest hero – are all cowards at heart, none of them daring to reveal themselves.

     I have been a supporter of Cruz and wondered why some people I respect didn’t trust him. I see now.

    • #6
  7. mildlyo Member
    mildlyo
    @mildlyo

    I was a Cruz guy in 2016, until he withdrew. Never again.

    • #7
  8. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    I had hopes for Ted. But accepting the inevitability of electoral corruption, monetising his podcast and now this? Even I have to say ‘bye’. (Even if – as it seems – it was a thoughtless rather than calculated remark, it shows he has become so enculturated to the swamp way of talking he has lost touch with The People.)

    • #8
  9. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    GlenEisenhardt: Because they have no agenda. They have no President. They have no accomplishments. They have nothing!

    Nailed it.

    • #9
  10. Victor Tango Kilo Member
    Victor Tango Kilo
    @VtheK

    • #10
  11. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    I am over Ted. Sad. I’ve contributed in the past, and supported his insurgency against the coronation of President Trump in July 2016. But Ted has gone too far for me.

    • #11
  12. Victor Tango Kilo Member
    Victor Tango Kilo
    @VtheK

    • #12
  13. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Both parties on the hill are normal human beings and have power but less actual legislative power than originally intended as they’ve given too much away over nearly a century to unaccountable bureaucrats whose overriding ambition is to accumulate power and exercise it.  They are the problem.  Let’s not lose focus.  Cruz probably knows he’ll not be President.   Let’s not make enemies of the good guys just because they’re imperfect.  Perfection is beyond all humans. 

    • #13
  14. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Victor Tango Kilo (View Comment):

    Is that the new senator from Wyoming?

    • #14
  15. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Just when you think it can’t get worse: This morning I heard Armstrong & Getty talking about the choice in the future being between Larry Hogan and Amy Klobuchar(sp?). 

    • #15
  16. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    What I wanna know is, where are their masks? There are at least three unmasked bioterrorists in that video clip. I thought moronic omicron variant was going to kill everyone. By rights, they should all be dead within a few days.

    As for Mr. Cruz’s redefinition of the term terrorism, there were plenty of folks in these environs making similar claims about a year ago. I’ve yet to see any apologies for that, though, admittedly, I don’t read every word posted here.

    • #16
  17. WI Con Member
    WI Con
    @WICon

    I was a Cruz guy in 2016. 

    I can’t explain or defend this. Over at Ace of Spades, it was posited that he knows his presidential aspirations are over (Trump & DeSantis) so he was doing this to soften up votes for a Supreme Court seat vacancy? If so, it was boneheaded – really pathetic and tone deaf.

    • #17
  18. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Victor Tango Kilo (View Comment):

    By some technical definition within the law, there is a way to define the events of January 6 as terrorism, even if it is a huge stretch. Sen. Cruz has a right to his opinion, but I think most normal people … and I must emphasize *normal* people — would think putting a riot/protest where the only people killed were protesters and the damage was considerably less than what goes on when the local roundball squadron wins an NBA championship — into the same bucket as 9-11 makes no sense. Especially since this same Government has decided there was no “terrorism” when Nadal Hassan murdered 13 people in the name of Allah in the Senator’s home state of Texas. (“Workplace violence,” the Army called it.)

    Well said.

    Does anyone have a link to what Sen. Cruz actually said?  It’s usually not a good idea to draw conclusions from media reports of a small portion of a statement.

    I did find sources indicating that Cruz called Jan. 6 a “violent terrorist attack,” which does seem technically accurate with respect to the actions of some of the rioters, but also strikes me as unnecessarily harsh rhetoric.  Calling it a “riot” would be sufficient, in my view, and would avoid playing into the hands of those who use even more intemperate language like “coup” or “insurrection.”

    I would advise against turning on Cruz on the basis of a single statement, particularly where, as here, it is reported out of context.  He’s been a solid conservative for many years, supported President Trump strongly, and was one of the few in Congress willing to challenge the election results on Jan. 6.

    • #18
  19. Dbroussa Coolidge
    Dbroussa
    @Dbroussa

    Django (View Comment):
    Laughed out loud at that, but seriously, I thought Cruz and Crenshaw were two we could count on.

    The only people who can count on Crenshaw is Crenshaw…the same appears to be true of Cruz.  I suspect he wants to run in 24 and thus feels that if he doesn’t toe the GOPe line he cannot get any support.  He knows that the outsider lane that he tried to win in 16 is still going to be dominated by Trump (even if he doesn’t run) and so he is looking to run more as a traditional candidate and needs to shore up that support.  It is also possible that he is getting behind the scenes pressure to toe the GOPe line or lose his committee assighnments.

    • #19
  20. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    WI Con (View Comment):

    I was a Cruz guy in 2016.

    I can’t explain or defend this. Over at Ace of Spades, it was posited that he knows his presidential aspirations are over (Trump & DeSantis) so he was doing this to soften up votes for a Supreme Court seat vacancy? If so, it was boneheaded – really pathetic and tone deaf.

    He’s bucking for the veep slot in the Kasich Administration.

    • #20
  21. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    WI Con (View Comment):

    I was a Cruz guy in 2016.

    I can’t explain or defend this. Over at Ace of Spades, it was posited that he knows his presidential aspirations are over (Trump & DeSantis) so he was doing this to soften up votes for a Supreme Court seat vacancy? If so, it was boneheaded – really pathetic and tone deaf.

    Well, Cruz was a Republican in 2016. 

    • #21
  22. James Salerno Coolidge
    James Salerno
    @JamesSalerno

    Dan Crenshaw has always been a piece of trash. When someone shows up on SNL or mentions “mending the divide” or “reaching out” those should be huge red flags. He may be the most anti-2A member of Congress.

    Shame about Ted, but his foreign policy takes were always garbage. Don’t let the door hit you on the backside on the way out (by the way, you are not constitutionally eligible to run for president, anyway).

     

    • #22
  23. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    Whatever his rationale, Cruz’s political career is over.  Dead and buried. What happened at the Capitol on 1-6-21 was not  terrorism or an insurrection by any means. It wasn’t really even a riot except for that  incited by the FBI and AntiFa stooges.  To call it “terrorism” is  a blatant capitulation to those who want to destroy the Republic.  The stark dividing line is this country now is  between those who want a Police State Tyranny or those who will appease  that Tyranny –  and – those who  are white hot angry at what these Traitors among us have done to bring that Tyranny to our country  and will not give  that Tyranny an inch.  Cruz has just confirmed he is on the wrong side of that chasm between the Patriots and Traitors.  He is clearly a traitor that can be      easily bought.  

     

    • #23
  24. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    Does anyone have a link to what Sen. Cruz actually said?

    • #24
  25. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    Does anyone have a link to what Sen. Cruz actually said?

    Thanks for this.

    I agree with everything that Sen. Cruz said.  I see no reason for outrage over this statement.  I would have preferred that he hadn’t used the term “violent terrorist attack” and had rather used something like “riot,” but referring to some of the rioting as a “terrorist attack” is accurate, in my view.  There were rioters who were attempting to stop the lawful count of the electoral votes, by acts of violence.  It does appear that this describes only a relatively small proportion of the protesters, but that doesn’t change the fact that there was some appallingly violent acts committed by some.

    • #25
  26. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    I would have preferred that he hadn’t used the term “violent terrorist attack” and had rather used something like “riot,” but referring to some of the rioting as a “terrorist attack” is accurate, in my view.  There were rioters who were attempting to stop the lawful count of the electoral votes, by acts of violence.  It does appear that this describes only a relatively small proportion of the protesters, but that doesn’t change the fact that there was some appallingly violent acts committed by some. [emphasis added]

    Yes,  but they have yet to separate the government provocateurs from the independent violent actors. Until they do, and clearly give us the numbers in each group and distinguish them from the “trespassers” and “paraders”, this rhetoric is always used to smear and “otherwise” people who “voted for the ‘wrong’ person”. Nice technical definitions that (may) apply to a small subset only adds strength to the smear.

    • #26
  27. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    Does anyone have a link to what Sen. Cruz actually said?

    Thanks for this.

    I agree with everything that Sen. Cruz said. I see no reason for outrage over this statement. I would have preferred that he hadn’t used the term “violent terrorist attack” and had rather used something like “riot,” but referring to some of the rioting as a “terrorist attack” is accurate, in my view. There were rioters who were attempting to stop the lawful count of the electoral votes, by acts of violence. It does appear that this describes only a relatively small proportion of the protesters, but that doesn’t change the fact that there was some appallingly violent acts committed by some.

    Ted Cruz is perhaps too stupid to realize the nature of the fight.  Or he’s on the other side, the Mitt Romney types.  Why don’t we go around calling Ronald Reagan a criminal gun-runner?  I mean, technically, he could be described that way, right?

    Because it makes no sense.  A toenail of justification does not form a body of reason.

    You know what he’s doing?  He’s buying Maverick insurance.  Screw him.

    • #27
  28. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    Does anyone have a link to what Sen. Cruz actually said?

    Thanks for this.

    I agree with everything that Sen. Cruz said. I see no reason for outrage over this statement. I would have preferred that he hadn’t used the term “violent terrorist attack” and had rather used something like “riot,” but referring to some of the rioting as a “terrorist attack” is accurate, in my view. There were rioters who were attempting to stop the lawful count of the electoral votes, by acts of violence. It does appear that this describes only a relatively small proportion of the protesters, but that doesn’t change the fact that there was some appallingly violent acts committed by some.

    My question is: Who does he believe the terrorists were?

    • #28
  29. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Flicker (View Comment):

    My question is: Who does he believe the terrorists were?

    Let me be more specific.  Yes, anything can be massaged and interpreted to mean anything.  This clip lacks context.  Was this a follow-up comment to someone saying that the Trump supporters were terrorists and that this was the most unholy day in US history?  Or was this intended as a dry summary of the letter of the law?

    I always come back to as the clearest, most egregious, least excusable thing Trump did in his 2016 run or in his presidency was when he called Cruz’s father a conspirator in the JFK assassination.  Cruz had a right to swear and curse Trump.  But Cruz’s actions since then have had bright spots of great conservative oration.  Nonetheless, for reasons that I can’t put my finger on right now, I have seen Cruz as a pure political opportunist.  The question is not one of words but of intent — honest, and keeping one’s word.

    If you can find a longer quote from Cruz on this I’d very much like to see it, since I’m left here with a sound bite.  This cut doesn’t include anything he may have said about political provocateurs.  But as it is, it sounds to me like political pandering — gutless, slanderous, vilification of Trump supporters in general in order to curry favor with the Never Trump communist sympathizers and the progressively-destructive political left.

    If he was painting all those several who attacked police as Trump protesters, then this kind of campaigning I don’t need.  And it is a bad sign regarding Cruz’s integrity and commitment to telling the truth.

     

    • #29
  30. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Flicker (View Comment):
    I always come back to as the clearest, most egregious, least excusable thing Trump did in his 2016 run or in his presidency was when he called Cruz’s father a conspirator in the JFK assassination.  Cruz had a right to swear and curse Trump. 

    Agree.  Trump was my guy, and I have no problem hitting him with a rolled-up newspaper when he soils the carpet.

    • #30