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
Well, it was for France….
Steyn has already commented he’s going to miss Scalia on a selfish personal level if his case gets to the SCOTUS.
Mr. Sowell used to say, Like some cleaning ladies who don’t do windows, I don’t do Republicans. There’s some wisdom in that, but it’s a luxury he cannot afford, apparently.
I don’t think most Americans care about the Supreme Court; & I don’t think they’re really trembling with excitement when conservatives talk about it.
I don’t see how Sen. Cruz is trying to persuade the GOP electorate that he is presidential. By relentlessness?
As for how can you know which if any of these people are not clowning–there are two ways. Insider accounts or forcing them to talk turkey. No luck, eh? These political types go to the Council on Foreign Relations to yap the mouth, but it’s pretty shabby stuff. Outside of the foreign policy debate, is there any institution in America that shows any concern for this? Is there any publication or what are called intellectuals who could ask for answers from candidates?
Which might be a good thing. If more Americans cared, we might be even less likely to end up with another Thomas or Scalia on the bench.
Even we conservatives, for all our anoraking on the Constitution and its proper interpretation, can be tempted to put politics above the fusty matter of rightfully interpreting the law. There is every reason to expect non-conservatives to be even more tempted to ignore rightful interpretation of the law, and to not consider it an important qualification for SCOTUS judges.
(I’ll note Thomas and Scalia disagreed often enough on what the rightful interpretation of our legal traditions should be. But they both cared very much about rightful interpretation, rather than projecting their own politics onto the law.)
I’m really not convinced by the electability argument. I think turnout is key. If there are actually people out there who are committed to voting, but aren’t quite sure whether they like Rubio or Clinton better, I don’t think we can do much about them. I don’t think there are many people like that. To the Democrats, Rubio, Cruz, Bush and Trump are all pretty much the same. They all hate women and hate black people and work for the Koch brothers. If if we nominate a moderate Republican, no one’s going to care except Republicans.
I prefer Cruz. I’ll happily vote for Rubio over any Democrat. Quite frankly, I’ll vote happily for any Republican over any Democrat (I’m counting Trump as a Democrat). If you think Rubio would make a better president than Cruz, you may be right. However, if you are supporting Rubio because you think he seems more palatable to independents than Cruz, I think you’re going to be disappointed. As I recall, Romney won independents, but the Democratic turnout was higher and that made the difference. In the minds of people who think Republicans are evil, Romney, Trump, and Cruz are all marching in unison.
Cleaning ladies will or won’t do Republicans?
I think that’s a combination of two different Seinfeld episodes.
Fighting jihadists is a minor problem, the locals can take care of it mostly with a little bit of our help. In fact, jihadis do us a favor, by punk-slapping Dems out of their brain lock (“Oh, ‘Islam is the ‘Religion of Peace'”). We should instead be declaring our own Holy Jihad against the real enemy, Socialism. By making Choice the paramount American blessing. Socialist hate choice ’cause they want to make all the choices. Or rather the Collective (= Them) make them.
I know one of them.
I also have a sneaking hope that Mr. Sowell does not know who Mr. Seinfeld is…
I have a great deal of respect for Sowell. Regarding Cruz’s electability, we frankly don’t know who is going to turn out for the election on either side. In the recent past, the appeal of the candidate has mattered. That’s why so many people, even people who called themselves conservatives, voted for Obama. And why so many people even turned out to vote. So I’m assuming that people who have been stirred up by this election, especially due to the polarization that has intensified, are going to vote for someone who is “attractive” to them in various ways. I prefer Rubio, but would vote for Cruz if he was the Republican candidate. I’m just not convinced that other people will vote for him. Principles are not going to be enough.
The media’s negative view of Cruz is one of the most powerful endorsements of the man that I can think of.
Why is AG of Texas better than leader of the House in Florida?
While I’m glad that one of the most admirable minds in conservatism agrees with my choice, that endorsement couldn’t be much weaker. He’s not endorsing Cruz so much as validating others’ support of Cruz by saying, “Well, you’re not crazy.”
How interesting that we must choose between two candidates of Cuban heritage just as American companies are again establishing facilities in Cuba.
I don’t understand that either, Valiuth. Perhaps Sowell was giving preference to legal experience in light of the SCOTUS nomination battle.
Rubio is better informed of international troubles. That does not by itself make him the better Commander-in-Chief. Of the two of them, Rubio seems more likely to repeat Bush’s errors like wasting a decade on “Democracy!” among tribal brutes in Iraq, paying jihadists not to shoot our soldiers in Afhanistan, and negotiating with the Taliban after initially trying to crush them.
I love this talk of destroying ISIS even as Al Qaeda rises from the grave to complicate the Syria mess. At this point, there is no strategy for subduing violence and terrorists in Syria that is not basically a repetition of our stop-gap Iraq occupation… only this time with Russia handcuffed to America’s wrist!
I second that – I like what I see so far – I have watched videos of him on the Senate floor – he is measured, respectful, does his homework – I get his emails and it shows his weekly work in the Senate – he introduces legislation and solutions to issues that I care about. I like Rubio as well, but I think Cruz is more experienced. I think Kasich would be good too. I hope the next administration taps Carly’s talents, Christie would be a fine Attorney General and Carson (I like him) as Surgeon General – we need all the talent we can get to clean up our country.
Rubio was speaker of the Florida Legislature. There is no essential difference between Rubio’s and Cruz’ experience. I don’t know why people point out Rubio’s lack of experience when Cruz has the same deficiency.
What pushes Rubio ahead of Cruz for me is that Rubio has a history of working with legislatures while Cruz has antagonized his very own Republican led Senate.
With all due respect to the great Thomas Sowell, he’s groping for a reason to support Cruz. Fine, he supports Cruz, but his rationale is flawed.
Okay, so I went back to read Sowell’s article. It is brief, especially regarding his comments on Cruz and Rubio. But I’d like to know the reasons for the criticisms of what he’s said. Here’s a portion:
The governors among the Republican candidates can at least be judged by how their track record stands up in running a governmental organization. So can Senator Ted Cruz, who was Solicitor General in Texas. But Senator Marco Rubio has no comparable experience — and his inexperience has shown up in his abortive attempt to join Democrats in promoting amnesty.
If the Republicans are to avoid having Donald Trump lead them — and the country — to disaster, they are going to have to have the majority of non-Trump supporters get behind some given candidate.
Senator Ted Cruz has been criticized in this column before, and will undoubtedly be criticized here again. But we can only make our choices among those actually available, and Senator Cruz is the one who comes to mind when depth and steadfastness come to mind.
As someone who once clerked for a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he will know how important choosing Justice Scalia’s replacement will be. And he has the intellect to understand much more.
Now I’m a Rubio supporter, but I understand some of Sowell’s critiques (although I don’t know how Cruz’s experience as attorney general trumps Rubio’s in the FL state legislature): (1) he holds Rubio accountable for his poor judgment and efforts regarding immigration. It’s not a deal breaker for me, but for Rubio to think working with the likes of Schumer was a good idea was unwise, to say the least. (2) Cruz is a great intellect and has great depth of understanding the Constitution. His clerking at SCOTUS may, I say may, give him an edge as president in identifying a SC Justice candidate, so that we actually get a Conservative.
So I wouldn’t write off Sowell so quickly–and I’m a Rubio fan.
Cruz was Solicitor General of Texas.
From the Texas Attorney General Website the functions of SG are:
Seawriter
I saw a piece of this some months ago, but having watched the whole thing, I’m sold on Cruz. I never wanted a ruler, a leader, or an idol: I want a President. I don’t care if he’s not cuddly and loveable. I’d have voted for Coolidge. I don’t care if he’s not a “team player:” it’s a solo position. He’ll never win any charisma contests — maybe his campaign should own that out loud.
That is an interesting point. Rubio does comes across as more impulsive than Cruz.
Naturally, I prefer Prof. Sowell as president.
But if I must choose another candidate, it will be Cruz. He had proven repeatedly that he is not moved by leftist hostility (a unique trait among the conservatives running) and again and again utters simple truths that are almost never spoken. (A small example is his remark that most shootings are committed by Democrats, yet the media and the president remain irrationally fixated on guns).
In the past I believed that the most electable Republican ticket was a Rubio Fiorina ticket. I was not sure which should be the President. I believe it would have been a winning ticket because it could appeal both to the Hispanic and women voters.
However upon learning that Rubio supports the overthrown of Assad I am leaning towards Senator Cruz. I thought the US had learned its lesson about the support of coups against government leaders after Vietnam. Any one who thinks US back coups are a good idea should read the book “Lost Mandate of Heaven”.
I don’t support the US involvement in the overthrow of any government. The basic problem is the leaders you get may be worst then the ones you overthrew. We help topple the government in Libya and got our ambassador killed. Our meddling in the Middle East is leading to the near extinction of Christianity in the Middle East and the rise of ISIS. The slaughter of thousands of Christians the rape and selling of women into sex slavery represents crimes against humanity equal to any crimes committed by the Nazis.
That’s his best credential, in my view. He nailed them with his “surrender caucus” statement, and they’re proven him right repeatedly since.
Cruz is the best candidate hands-down if you think that our Constitution is the one of the best mechanisms for government that was ever devised. He’s part of a small minority of Republicans (forget the Democrats) who give more than lip service to our Constitution.
It’s a useless piece of parchment if one doesn’t actually follow it.
Rubio is too naïve and green, despite being the same age as Cruz. Getting bamboozled by Schumer makes clear that he doesn’t understand the fundamental dynamic going on in our country. It’s easy to be against Islamic terrorism, it’s a bit harder to understand that they’re not the main threat we face.
It’s the people, not the politicians… A Convention won’t fix that.
Electability isn’t a dirty word if it implies the ability and desire to persuade others to support you. Let’s be clear; I will support, with great enthusiasm, either Rubio or Cruz in November. Communication ability and instinct isn’t a negligible quality in a President, and that is an area where Rubio has demonstrated that he wants to persuade people not already predisposed to conservatism to support him. Cruz has consciously and publicly decided on a different strategy; that’s fine, I just don’t think it’s the right one.
Cruz is a brilliant intellect who would be ideally suited for the Scalia role on the Supreme Court. Rubio is the guy that should appoint him. If Cruz wins, God bless Texas & Rubio should be his Secretary of State.
Totally agree. I don’t think that Solicitor General translates to a leadership role. If anything the nit-pickiness of a legal mind drives people away.
Consider how Rubio responded to Cruz’s accusation regarding Univision. He lost his head and lashed out with a childish and false counter-accusation that Cruz doesn’t speak Spanish (to which Cruz responded in Spanish).
Electability? Would Rubio respond as poorly to Hillary Clinton’s accusations? How would he handle hostile media once he became the Left’s sole target… when Trump the circus sideshow is no longer around to entertain?
Cruz might not be able to match Rubio’s charisma, but he holds up under fire and understands the importance of controlling the conversation. I think Rubio is generally an honest guy, but Cruz’s savvy will be necessary during a brutal main election and 4-8 years of hostile misinformation.
Electability = passivity. Winning = activity.
But don’t some, maybe many, of those specific voters regret voting for Obama?
And in this cycle, would any of those same fence-walkers give similar support to Bernie Sanders?
Hillary Clinton?
Joe Biden?
or any other Democrat who might waltz in to dance in November?
I agree. Then their endorsement of Trump is a red flag as well.