Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Thomas Sowell Endorses Ted Cruz
Noting with sorrow Justice Scalia’s death, Sowell begs his readers to sober up:
The vacancy created on the Supreme Court makes painfully clear the huge stakes involved when we choose a President of the United States, just one of whose many powers is the power to nominate justices of the Supreme Court.
After enumerating these, and indirectly reminding readers that the next president is apt to be a wartime president, he makes his views about Trump perfectly clear:
Against this background, the frivolous rhetoric and childish antics in the televised political “debates” are painful to watch. If ever there was a time to choose a president with depth, rather than glitter or glibness, this is it.
Trump’s behavior is often that of an “overgrown spoiled brat,” he remarks:
If, by some miracle, Trump became president, what kind of president would he be? Do we need another self-centered know-it-all in the White House to replace the one we have now?
He suggests the Republican candidates be judged by their track record in running a governmental organization. He seems to think none of the governors are electable. This leaves him, by a process of elimination, with the painfully inexperienced Cruz and Rubio. He consoles himself with the thought that Cruz, at least, was attorney general in Texas. Rubio has no comparable experience, and Sowell suggests that his inexperience shows.
He concludes, “We can only make our choices among those actually available.”
So by a process of elimination, he endorses Cruz. Pretty much holding his nose, as far as I can tell from the prose.
I can’t argue with his logic, but I’m hoping for a miracle, because I do not look at Ted Cruz and feel confident. Or see him as electable. Do you?
Published in General
Ted Cruz wasn’t Attorney General in Texas, he was our Solicitor General.
He is electable and will make a good President if elected.
Correct about that. The mistake is in the original. I didn’t notice it. I wonder whether the mistake was Sowell’s, and if so, whether he’s really thought through this nomination.
I’m getting really wrapped around the axle on the “These guys are senators who’ve never run anything. How’d that work out for you last time,” argument. Christie did make this point very effectively.
But yes, at some point, via a process of elimination, you end up with Rubio or Cruz, and I truly can’t figure out whether either of them would be even halfway competent as a Commander-in-Chief or a Slayer-of-the-Debt.
Your questions about CiC of all of them merits consideration. Christie raised a good point.
Regarding the debt the most important ting we can do to address it in the short run is stop the status quo and spending trajectory. To that end I think Cruz is more reliable. His lack of peer endorsements will make it easier to veto spending. David Deeble outlines the concern nicely on the Member Feed.
Why, do you think? Once you’ve been elected, you don’t need the endorsements anymore, in principle.
I tend to agree. Endorsements don’t matter to me, but to read some of the political rags you would think that Cruz is the spawn of Satan because no Senators have endorsed him. Sen. Sessions has said some nice things about him, but that is as far as it is going to go.
I think his lack of endorsements is a plus. I don’t want a President endorsed by those who feed and live off of federal expansion. I also don’t want a president on the precipice of dementia or Alzheimers with a limited grasp on our founding principles and Constitution.
If a candidate receives an endorsement and the local endorsing politician campaigns with him, then that sets up a quid pro quo that ultimately leads back to more spending as all things in Washington tend to.
I believe there is a pent up list of Republican donor paybacks waiting for a Republican President. Imagine a Republican ‘stimulus’ for their donor base not unlike what the democrats and Obama did in 2009.
All,
I believe loud arguments between Cruz and Rubio reflect more modest policy differences. These two lights may seem far apart when view from our vantage point, but when viewed from where Clinton and Sanders stand, they merge into a single flame. My preference for Rubio has to do with that ugly word “electability,” and I do desperately want to win. Usually the more likeable candidate wins. If Clinton is the nominee, this sets a low bar. Cruz in my judgment has a sharp demeanor that will make it hard to persuade moderates. Rubio is more defined by his smile. My personal preference, I think this was suggested at Ricochet, is Rubio for president and he nominates Cruz to fill Scalia’s vacancy. Ironically, if Cruz were president, I would prefer someone with a more disquished legal background than Rubio for the Supreme Court.
Ted Cruz is a good man and will make a fine president. I plan on voting for him later today, when early voting begins here in Texas.
I rather have a successful multi-term governor of a large state as president. But Sowell is correct: you can only chose from the choices you have.
I believe both Cruz and Rubio would make a suitable president. I favor a Los Hermano Cubaos ticket, with Rubio at the top.
Because national security is my primary consideration I have shifted from favoring Cruz to favoring Rubio. Fighting ISIS and jihadists will require significant combat troops and Rubio is the only one of the two who declaring this is necessary. Put crudely, Cruz is saying something like only small numbers of troops are needed. Cruz’s claim is nonsense.
I think Cruz is smart enough to know better but because Cruz, being Cruz, is relentless triangulating. His triangulation this case takes the form of pandering to those I euphemistically refer to as Ron Paul “Fans” by denying he intends to use significant combat troops to defeat jihadists. Tactics like this might win him the presidency but if he wins campaigning this way he will have no mandate for using the kind of force necessary to defend our national security because, when campaigning, he claimed he would do otherwise.
I have other reasons for transferring my support from Cruz to Rubio but this is my primary reason.
So far, they’ve run campaigns better than the governors.
This is a good point. I’ve been saying to myself that perhaps it really makes no difference that Rubio gives the impression that he’s at least looked at a map. Because that’s really the bare-minimum. I’ve just been figuring Cruz is too smart to believe what he’s saying, and is saying it because it polls well. Therefore there’s no way to have any idea what they plan to do in office.
But you’re right, Rubio would have more of a mandate to have a foreign policy, period. And yes, that could prove important, although I suspect these things can turn on a dime.
If only that were a good guide to someone’s ability to be a good president.
Cruz has no love for the current crop of legislators in Congress, especially the pols who are there to cut deals. Especially the type of log-rolling deal making the Senate has been famous for – earmarks, you-vote-to-fund-this-for-me-I’ll-vote-to-fund-that-for-you, the Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase, etc.
He will veto spending because it will give him pleasure to put one a thumb in the eye of pork-barrel politicians. I suspect he will go out of his way to veto sweetheart legislation.
Payback? Perhaps, but yielding a badly-needed result.
Seawriter
We’ve acquired our negatives about Cruz by osmosis from the media. We don’t know him. We’re told his colleagues on the hill don’t like him. He was pushy and tried to do things he was elected to do rather than earn his place through time. That’s a good sign. While Rubio and Cruz are both smart as hell Cruz was supposed to have been the most brilliant law student in many decades, according to Dershowitz, ever. That isn’t usually a good sign for me. Guys who have always been the brightest guy in very big rooms lack a sense of what they do not and cannot know and often give rise to government overreach. Kennedy’s best and brightest were major disasters. Cruz is confident and cocky but policies he proposes show he knows the limits of human knowledge and government capacity. Rubio’s disastrous move to join the gang of eight, was naive, not some deep love of Mexican immigrants. He learned from it but some people who just don’t trust any Latino don’t trust him and they support Trump and may never vote for Rubio. He should have known it was an attempt to bring him down as too bright a new star. It worked. Still, we’d be lucky to have either one. Consider the alternatives, Hillary, Sanders, Biden or Trump. This is easy. All of our candidates are electable. They all need strong establishment support, and soon.
In their day, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney each had the term “electable” bestowed upon them. In 2016, I think the term is completely up for grabs. And from my vantage point, the fact that Senator Cruz is an outsider to the D.C. Establishment (Team McConnell, et. al.) is not only a virtue but an advantage this year.
The liberal media is scared to death of Ted Cruz. They see his principles and strengths and they sought ways, early and often, to ‘Palinize’ him. Ted Cruz is no Sarah Palin, but they have been somewhat successful in people’s general sense of him as not being liked or “electable” (spitting sound). His demeanor … serious and intellectual … doesn’t work as well in our American Idol debate format that prefers “glitter or glibness”. Guess what, there is no better time for a President with the demeanor of Ted Cruz.
With regard to his ability to “run a government organization”, I have to laugh. Being President is way more about setting vision and the direction for the cabinet and the staff to implement. He has the gravitas to set a Constitutional vision both domestically and with our foreign policy.
And he is at least as likely to end or limit some of the “government organizations” as he is to run them. Bully for him!
As we mark the birthday of Lincoln, I seem to recall his executive experience was…limited, and he had a brief tour in the US House of Representatives. He seemed to manage, guided by principle. My senator, Rubio, is the best we could possibly get during that election and boy did we conservative Floridians get flak from the “establishment” types here, when we supported him in the primary, over Crist. He is knowledgeable and well-prepared, but I would not describe him as guided by principle.
With two boys in the military I do not fear their deployments overseas, in and of itself. I would hate to have them deployed as our troops have been, since 2001, with Rules of Engagement that hamstring them and poorly defined goals/exit strategies. Whom do I believe would only deploy troops under ROEs that keep them as safe as possible, regardless of PC whim? Whom might most narrowly define missions? Whom may be the least likely to advance the worst officers (such as those that require trainees to wear high heels), or promote the use of “alternative” fuels, or any other faddish nonsense? I would prefer the commander that I thought had the most reasoned, sound principles.
The available candidate that I think is least likely to act based upon whim or political expedience is the senator from Texas.
Claire, you felt it a civic duty to watch some of the episodes of The Apprentice series in the event that Trump might ascend to the Presidency of the United States.
Here is something much better. Listen to this 59:47 incredible speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate last September. This was a Profile in Courage. This is a leader who not only is electable, but someone in which you can have confidence that he will know how to “run the government”. Where was Marco Rubio after Ted Cruz gave this speech? AWOL, or huddled with Mitch consoling him about “mean” Ted.
Sen. Ted Cruz: The Real Story of What Is Happening in Washington
Hold on, hold on. Since when was the Louisiana purchase a failure?
It seems to have been a reasonable guide to effectiveness as President. Obama is a catastrophic President, but not because he’s ineffective. It’s because he’s been very effective at enacting a catastrophic agenda. Cruz’s surefootedness in the campaign so far is a reason to think he will be surefooted as President, while Rubio’s missteps and failure to capitalize on natural advantages is something to be concerned about.
The problem with Obama was not that he was a Senator for a year and a half before he decided to be president. The problem with Obama is that he is a Marxist and his ideals are designed to destroy a la Cloward and Piven. No matter how many years of “experience” Obama could have had as a governor, his policies would have led to the same end because that is what they are designed to do. Cruz or Rubio are eminently qualified because, on a general level, they both believe in the power of the individual and the sanctity of Liberty.
That term of art refers to favors granted Senator M. Landrieu (D – Louisiana) during the ACA debacle to garner her support. The ACA is/was very unpopular in her home state as it was in Nebraska and Democrats promised all sorts of favors to get it passed.
Its contemporary use is as an insult against Senators demanding tribute to support others expansion of government as opposed to the acquisition of a large part of our nation from France.
Very nice dissertation about Obama.
Gotcha. You can see how that would throw me, though, right?
Not Sowell’s finest column. You can almost sense his level of disgust and struggle to have something cogent to say about this mess.
Sure, Trump can list a few (or at least two) names of judges and get away with it because no one even follows up. He bellows and they — chiefly Cruz and Bush, counterbellow.
Why not follow up and limelight the man’s ignorance?
“Donald, we know you are familiar with bankruptcy court, but do you know what Circuit Judge Pryor sits on? Do you know the word he used to describe Roe v. Wade? Of course not, you are very liberal on abortion even partial birth abortion. Do you know what Circuit Judge Sykes sits on? Can you name one great dissent of Justice Scalia?”
One issue re Trump and judicial appointments really appalls me: One of the more crucial duties of a truly conservative president is the appointment of independent justices that will oppose and castigate his own potential abuses of executive power.
Of course, the appointment of the liberal lap dogs by Clinton and Obama doesn’t involve this complicated duty.
But can you imagine Trump appointing justices that might oppose his rather expansive presumption of executive power and privilege?
Can you imagine Trump even understanding the argument?
I picture him as a German Shepherd with his head cocked in confusion when Jeff Sessions or John Yoo attempts to explain the need to check his own prerogatives.
Yes, absolutely. Unless someone was enmeshed in the behind the scenes geekery of that legislation it is easily overlooked.
I can only imagine how the term goes over in France.
Great arguments for Ricochet only.
Last time, Sowell endorsed Gingrich after Mark Steyn harpooned Newt at point-blank range from National Review.
This time Steyn has called Trump the insane man who says sane things as compared to Bush, the sane man who says insane things. (This being after Steyn and National Review parted ways and National Review tried to harpoon Trump this time around.)
That’s a bit of an interesting reversal.
P.S. I wonder if Steyn will get his day in court before the next presidential election cycle…
The Louisiana Purchase was the term used for the concessions made to Mary Landrieu to secure her vote for Obamacare.
Seawriter
I’m old enough to remember the hand wringing and gnashing of teeth about Reagan. “Unelectable” was the least of the comments at the time. He was also too old, “just an actor”, divorced, too conservative, an ideologue etc etc etc.
Turned out okay. Ted is the most principled conservative we have in the race.
Well, those who cannot run campaigns will never make good Presidents.
Like the Cornhusker Kickback.