Patterico's Pontifications

11/3/2014

Ted Cruz: Scrutinize Obama and Repeal ObamaCare

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:42 am



Nice wide-ranging interview with Ted Cruz here in the Washington Post. In it, we learn that Cruz plans to put Obama under further scrutiny after the mid-terms:

Piggybacking on what House leaders have done, Cruz said the first order of business should be a series of hearings on President Obama, “looking at the abuse of power, the executive abuse, the regulatory abuse, the lawlessness that sadly has pervaded this administration.”

And he also wants to continue to try to repeal ObamaCare:

Cruz also would like the Senate to be as aggressive in trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act as the House, which has voted more than 50 times to get rid of the law.

Republicans should “pursue every means possible to repeal Obamacare,” Cruz said, including forcing a vote through parliamentary procedures that would get around a possible filibuster by Democrats. If that leads to a veto by Obama, Cruz said, Republicans should then vote on provisions of the health law “one at a time.”

I like the way he thinks — but then, like Cruz, I’m more interested in policy than in the mechanisms of how to get people elected. I’m not particularly skilled in opining on the latter issue, and I suspect/worry Cruz would not be particularly skilled at getting votes on a national scale — since successful politics seems to require caving on principle, which doesn’t appear to be in Cruz’s DNA.

By contrast, I find this irritating, although it may well be successful politics:

[Sen. Rand] Paul also wants to make it easier for non-violent adult and juvenile criminal offenders to seal their records; to restore voting rights to non-violent ex-felons; and to restore Fifth Amendment protections against police seizure assets without due process.

He is sharply critical of his own party for neglecting the interests of African Americans but argues Democrats have taken black voters for granted.

“Remember Domino’s Pizza? They admitted, ‘Hey, our pizza crust sucks.’ The Republican Party brand sucks and so people don’t want to be a Republican and for 80 years, African-Americans have had nothing to do with Republicans,” he said.

The argument that the GOP has nothing to offer blacks, unless of course we pander to them, is a stance that irritated me when Michael Steele took it, and it still irritates me now. But who knows if my proposed solution would have any effect? My proposed solution would be to talk about how Republican policies would help blacks far more than Democrat policies would. I would argue that the true war on poverty was fought by the free market system, which reduced poverty to a staggering degree in the last 200 years, whereas the Democrat-sponsored government war on poverty has created chaos in the black community. I would argue that unrestrained abortion harms blacks more than it harms whites. I would argue that fighting freedom of choice in schooling harms blacks more than it harms whites.

But it’s easy to demonize my stances, just as I fear it will be easy to demonize Rand Paul’s admirable past stances in favor of economic freedom. The Democrats will say those positions are prompted, not by a love of freedom, but rather by racial prejudice. If he becomes a serious candidate, we’ll hear all about his dad’s newsletters and his opposition to the 1960s Civil Rights Act, and all this outreach will be for naught. Just watch. You’ll see.

Which, if they’re going to do that to you anyway (and they are), you might as well speak the truth and stand up for your own positions. That’s why I say we need people like Ted Cruz. There are plenty of potential cavers out there, and not enough people willing to stand up for what’s right.

49 Responses to “Ted Cruz: Scrutinize Obama and Repeal ObamaCare”

  1. There is no way to get back to the old insurance system. It died when the Roberts court let Obamacare go forward. Anything they replace it with must include must – issue and cohort pricing. Too many people lost policies and would be excluded from getting them back under the old rules.

    Kevin M (44f41a)

  2. This post works well with Dana’s most recent post. I wish GOP politicians read your website every day.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  3. Paul is off-base and pandering. It will take a sea change for black folks to wake up and see who has their best interests at heart. It’s the Democrat policies and approach to EVERYTHING that virtually ensures a lack of quality education, economic growth, jobs, entrepreneurship, etc., which in-turn engenders high valuation placed on unemployment benefits and EXTENDED benefits, AFDC, food stamps, etc.

    The Democrat Party does not value personal responsibility or self accountability and promotes a victim mentality that is crippling in the short term and has disastrous long term consequences.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  4. Immigration policy… healthcare… regulatory policy… criminal justice system…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  5. What we need is 50 or so people like him in the Senate.

    jakee308 (d409c2)

  6. I don’t agree with everything Paul says, but I love that he is so forward about this. Sitting in a circle, making a good comparison to Dominoes and their honesty which led to a re-invigoration of their brand.

    It’s the opposite of standing over a crowd on a podium to say ‘sit down and shut up’ to your subjects, or an earnest recording of a politician saying he doesn’t care about winning the votes of 47% of Americans, writing them off.

    A lot of the remaining die hard republicans see this as a sport, and their idea of an argument is to get hysterical about the other team. Granted, there’s plenty to harshly criticize either party over, but is that a winning strategy? It’s time to admit: everything the GOP did in 2012 was not the way the GOP should go if it wants to be successful.

    Rand Paul wants to be successful. He’s not content to be wined and fined minority party Senator, or a fortunate son of a famous politician, like so many we have in the GOP today. God Bless him for that. I agree with Jake that we need 50 more. Maybe 5000 more. Let’s vote for the people who are trying rather than presiding.

    We hear a lot that there’s no point trying to win over black voters. I think that’s insulting to their intelligence. The fact is that GOP racism is real. Elitism is real. Plenty of minorities are suspicious of all politicians, and when the GOP acts like it’s written blacks off, they assume, correctly, that they wouldn’t be well represented.

    So how do you win over black voters without compromising principles? You have to be honest about personal responsibility and crime and immigration, but it’s a two way street conversation and generalizing doesn’t win a single vote. Rand Paul will have to keep doing this and hone it, but the approach is sensible and I believe it’s sincere.

    If you truly believe that democrats are totally evil, to the degree they are usually described on conservative blogs, of course you have no business lecturing anyone on how to win over lifelong democrats. They are actually human beings who want a good life, and have absorbed the same hysterical nonsense about conservatives and republicans, for the same lazy reasons. This nation has been at a crossroads for about a decade, and a lot of big changes will emerge from this period.

    Dustin (801032)

  7. I might have recommended that Sen Cruz have this wide-ranging interview with the WP right after the election– in fact on the morning after the R’s take the senate– laying out what he, as an incumbent senator wants and hopes the body will be able to accomplish now with new members, under a new leadership and a re-aligned re-focused party composition.

    elissa (f40b08)

  8. He should do that too, Elissa.

    I like it when our politicians are open before elections as well. No surprises.

    We already know the next two years will have the democrats relying on fiat and the label of obstructionist, and the GOP lecturing from committee hearings. In 2016, the democrats will have this period to blame for everything under the sun, and the most effective election apparatus if 2012 and 2008 are any indicator. The GOP deserves to lose, but the democrats deserve it too, and I’m sure that will be the main argument both sides rely on.

    I don’t think reform is realistic until one party has both houses and the presidency, and the GOP is going to have a tough time getting there without some wholesale changes in the political landscape. We have to think bigger than GOTV or winning the conservative base, which is why I like Paul’s appeal to the 47%. That’s leadership. I hope most of the GOP finds it incredibly irritating and even incomprehensible, given their terrible track record on thinking.

    Dustin (801032)

  9. Dustin, my point was mainly that I didn’t think it was necessarily wise or fair for Sen. Cruz to speak on behalf of people who are still struggling to even get elected to the senate in their home states. I don’t disagree with Cruz much on policy and I admire his intellect. But agreeing to the timing of this interview I think does show some political naivete on his part. I prefer the idea of holding the future strategy pertaining to policy close to the vest until the stage is set, the time is right, and it is advantageous to move.

    elissa (f40b08)

  10. Like both of them in senate

    Paul I could support for president if I had to

    all that stuff applies to white people too you know

    happyfeet (618bc5)

  11. Scott Brown New Hampshire closer ad. If this ad does not give you goose bumps there’s something wrong with you. :)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj5NfUWUmbE

    elissa (f40b08)

  12. It seems the key to getting national votes is to have a dumbed down sound bite to display your policy.

    Dejectedhead (a094a6)

  13. elissa – Brown is just another worthless New England RINO who is no different than a Democrat. :)

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  14. elissa–

    Ditto on the timing of the Romney interview.

    Kevin M (d91a9f)

  15. Yeah, I know, daley. But I was surprised to see that he has a good day at least every once in a while.

    elissa (f40b08)

  16. “Ditto on the timing of the Romney interview.”

    Kevin M – Which part of the Romney interview do you think gave Democrats fodder to scare voters to the polls?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  17. Mark on another thread: 11/2/2014 @ 11:28 pm

    When he mentioned a few months ago that he has received election flyers from ultra-liberal organizations (which generally will send their stuff only to those who they believe share their ideology), that spoke volumes to me about apparent aspects of Sammy’s voter-registration history and perhaps material he has subscribed to in the past.

    Now I got the flyers from the Working Families Party – two of them – they are not sure of my address or something – urging me to vote for Cuomo on the Working Families line. These, with the picture of deBlasio, were mailed out widely and got into the newspaper.

    I did not get the mail sent to all 1 million registered Democrats in New York State who did not vote in the 2010 election that the New York Post reported about – because I did vote in that election. I am not clear if that was people who had voted in at least one election before 20010 or maybe the 2012 presidential election. The mail referred people to some kind of non partisan group not connected with whoever sent it out.

    It said that although they can’t tell who you vote for, they know – it is public record – and they are watching, who votes and does not vote. That came across as threatening to some people – at least someone might take it as meaning that if you went to an Assembly member or State Senate member for help they might not pay attention to you if you hadn’t voted. All elected officials in New York State act as ombudsmen except the one who is supposed to be an ombudsman – the New York City Public Advocate. (Paul O’Dwyer liked the idea of an ombudsman and had those duties added to the description of the City Council President – then after Board of Estimate was ruled unconstitutional, that was all that was left)

    I voted for Norman Siegel (Kaci Hickox’s lawyer) twice because that his conception of the job. Very very leftwing, but honest, and that was a good job for him.

    Of course what they would only do is send more mail – for now.

    Cuomo claimed this was a national Democratic party effort, but it is not quite like that. He also maybe claimed he hadn’t approved it.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  18. Sammy, why on earth did you just copy pasta and bring that conversation over to THIS unrelated thread? Why?

    elissa (f40b08)

  19. I should mention I subscribed to e-mail from the Working Families Party.

    Note: There is some suspicion that Cuomo is secretly trying to sabotage the Working Families Party and get them under 50,000 votes (so they’d lose their line on the ballot) by promoting his Women’s Equality Party. That’s a problem for them. I should also mention that Green Party candidate is heading toward 10% in the general election for Governor.

    Cuomo had to promise the WF party to get tehir niominaiton and not have thenm endorse their alternative candidate – who refused to go away and ran in a primary for Governor in September – that he woukld support a Democratic tajkeopve rof the State Senate. may not want the New York State Senate to be taken over by the Republican Party. Which reminds me I am not sure what to do about Amendment 1.

    On the surface, this is reapportionment reform. Actually it tends to freeze in the present situation, except that it maximizes the possibility of the Republican party salvaging something, in case they will lose their majority in the State Senate. It reduces even further the possibility of some reapportionment that would create competitive elections. Which means domination by interest groups, except a few new ones get added from time to time. So a yes vote means you’re really almost giving up any hope of competitive elections.

    The current system has the redistricting done by the legislature. The new system would have the four majority and minority leaders appoint 8 members of a commission to draw lines and these 8 will pick two more, and then they will draw lines that can be rejected by the legislature. If the legislature rejects it twice, the legislature then gets to draw up lines. So in legislature where the Satte Senate is barely Democratic, the Republicans could try to favor a few Democrats, and maybe then get the usual.

    The status quo, for the last 45 years or more, is that when New York State loses two seats in Congress (every Census) onw comes from a Democrat dn one comes from a Republican, and most important, the New York State Assembly is Democratic (by about 2/3) and the New York State Senate is Republican (by a slim majority) One way or another the Republicans manage to scrape through an edge there even though this almost defies the law of gravity.

    For instance, this year I will have a choice of voting for Simcha Felder on the Democratic line and Simcha Felder on the Conservative line. There is no Republican candidate because well, after all, Simcha Felder votes as a Republican on organizational matters.

    If there was Democratic candidate Simcha Felder might be lost to the Democratic Party altogether – and many of his voters. (there’s actually a serious Republican challenge to Assembkyman Dov Hikind this year – that person is campaigning on the idea of building housing over the LIRR tracks that run through boro park – as if he could do it, and maybe as if it maybe might be free.

    They used to regard Jews, of whatever kind, as reliable Democratic voters, but no more. The first scare for the democrats camne in 1984, when Cong. Stephen Solarz was reduced to about 64% from 82% – and in a better campaign he might have lost. Nothing much happened till Anthony Weiner resigned but theer have been several by elections won by a Republican. The voting habots are fragile. Joe Lhota had his next to best result in parts of Brooklyn.

    That and his also previously claiming Obama isn’t intrinsically a leftist and that commentator Pat Buchanan loves blood and violence.

    Both statements I think are true.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  20. 18. elissa (f40b08) — 11/3/2014 @ 11:52 am

    Sammy, why on earth did you just copy pasta and bring that conversation over to THIS unrelated thread? Why?
    It’s even less related to that thread. This one is at least about the election.

    I also have mention two New York Daily News editorials.

    One seemed to endorse a party hack because the Republican candidate was so bad – the other endorsed a crook because the Democratic nominee was so bad. It noted he had promised to resign if coinvicted and then we could start over with twio new candidates.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  21. Mitch McConnell sort of back off from what some people thought he was saying about not repealing Obamacare.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  22. Sammy, no you should not “mention” it on this thread. Please, please stand down.

    elissa (f40b08)

  23. I’m not sure whether this is in line with Patterico’s irritation at Rand Paul, but I also feel he is irritating when he criticizes the GOP for spending too much time talking about Voter ID. To me that is flat out pandering based on the long-term marketing campaign of Democrats to brand Republicans as racist and he should be fighting it rather than acquiescing to it.

    I applaud his outreach to black and minority audiences and he can easily explain the difference in approach to election integrity between the two parties. Republicans believe in fair elections, want 100% participation by eligible voters and zero fraud. Democrats have a history of voter suppression and want 110% participation with 20% fraud. The history of which party prevents clean elections is clear.

    Read through the decision of the District Court Judge in the recent Texas case. It is ridiculous. It is based on a bunch of he said, she said, touchy feely, soft evidence, not quantitative reasoning which Democrats have managed to implant into peoples’ minds over time. Rand Paul is reinforcing that reasoning rather than refuting it with his rhetoric and he should be ashamed of himself.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  24. Patrick: As I think you and others here may know, I very much share your regard for Texas’ junior United States Senator. I’ve been among his fans since he was Texas’ solicitor general, and I have great hopes and expectations for him: He’s young and has many years ahead of him. And I think he’s factored that in, when charting his political course.

    I believe Cruz is as undiluted and authentic as any voice in national politics ever. But my personal assessment is that right now, in the coming year at least, he’s going to be devoting most of his efforts to trying to frame the terms of the GOP debate on who and what the Party should stand for in 2016.

    That’s not inconsistent with him being either an announced candidate or a candidate-in-all-but-name for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination himself. His name’s among those being floated. Sometimes political fortune strikes sooner than you predict — and if that happens for him in a big hurry, I would expect him to recognize it and capitalize on it. And I wouldn’t expect him to turn down a Veep nod either, for that matter. But I credit him with seeing the long game, and being patient in playing it when that’s what’s necessary. That’s what his whole career path prior to the U.S. Senate tells me, anyway.

    I think he’s now engaged in being a provocateur of Obama and the Left for the salutary effects that may have on the 2016 race — whether he’s a candidate in it or not.

    I’m content with this.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  25. Kevin M – Which part of the Romney interview do you think gave Democrats fodder to scare voters to the polls?

    More in the alternate, it could be used to depress Repubkican voters, with his statements about comprehensive immigration reform being likely.

    JD (285732)

  26. “I think he’s now engaged in being a provocateur of Obama and the Left for the salutary effects that may have on the 2016 race — whether he’s a candidate in it or not.

    I’m content with this.”

    Beldar – I agree and am content with that as well.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  27. Dustin, my point was mainly that I didn’t think it was necessarily wise or fair for Sen. Cruz to speak on behalf of people who are still struggling to even get elected to the senate in their home states.

    That’s what I thought you meant. I like that Ted Cruz was honest about his intentions before the election. Integrity is sorely lacking in politics, what with so many politicians saying one thing, and then flip flopping when it’s convenient. As you know, I distrust politicians who do that, and appreciate those who are open in advance.

    Ted is well aware he doesn’t speak for the RINOs, btw. Trust me.

    Dustin (801032)

  28. And of course this makes winning power harder. Integrity is one of those things that is easy to have when it costs nothing, and in those cases it’s not really integrity so much as vanity.

    Dustin (801032)

  29. elissa – Brown is just another worthless New England RINO who is no different than a Democrat. :)

    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/3/2014 @ 11:12 am

    and I heard he was a socialist, just like that damned Romney!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  30. “I say everywhere I go that I am for immigration reform.”

    – Sen. Rand Paul, in June 2014

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  31. #23… spot on, daley. I like Paul, but he needs to be smarter and not feed into asinine stereotypes about the “Republican brand”.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  32. Some time ago, Patterico had a post about how contrary to popular belief, the Republicans actually did better when they stuck to the hardcore conservative values, at least that is how I remember it….wish I would have printed it out….

    Georganne (e37667)

  33. The argument that the GOP has nothing to offer blacks, unless of course we pander to them, is a stance that irritated me when Michael Steele took it, and it still irritates me now.

    Reading through the linked piece, I’m not seeing much in the way of pandering, at least not by Paul. From the piece:

    Instead of shooting out policy proposals from behind a lectern, Paul sets up the meetings as listening sessions — just what Hillary Clinton did in upstate New York when she ran for Senate in 2000.

    Listening is good. No problem so far, I wouldn’t think.

    Paul emphasizes criminal justice reform as well as conservative approaches to fighting poverty and improving education.

    The senator is usually a harsh critic of President Obama, who remains popular among many African-Americans. But on the subject of criminal justice reform, he praises Obama warmly.

    “We talked a little bit about criminal justice reform and I complimented him on some of the commutation of sentences he’s done. He tried to correct some of the crack powder disparity with cocaine but still some people are already in jail,” Paul told The Hill in an interview, noting a rare phone call he had with Obama a few weeks ago.

    “There’s some people who have been in jail 15, 18 years for crack cocaine whereas their white counterparts got out in six months or a year. He let some of those people go early,” he said. “I complimented him on it and told him I would work with him on criminal justice reform.”

    I think Paul in genuinely libertarian on the drug war, and so all of that is consistent with his philosophy. In other words, it’s not pandering when he talks about it with a Black audience, since he talks the same way with non-Black audiences.

    Paul also wants to make it easier for non-violent adult and juvenile criminal offenders to seal their records; to restore voting rights to non-violent ex-felons; and to restore Fifth Amendment protections against police seizure of assets without due process.

    Lets break that down:
    1. Sealing records of criminals. That doesn’t sound promising. But, without more details on exactly what he is proposing, I would reserve jusgement.
    2. Restoring voting rights to non-violent ex-felons. Sounds good to me. I know the proposal is thought to favor Dems, but I think that once someone has “paid their debt to society”, that society should strive to reintegrate the former offenders into society, as long as the ex-offenders are making the same effort. I think that going to the trouble to vote is one step in rejoining society and is a very low risk step for society to take. It is nothing like limiting the ex-felons 2nd amendment rights, for example, as the argument that ex-felons might use guns to reoffend would sound downright stupid when applied to voting.
    3. Restoring Fifth Amendment protections against police seizure of assets without due process. Not just yes, but HELL YES. It should be an offense to the conscience of any liberty loving American that their government is engaging in this behavior. If being aligned with Right means endorsing this kinds of thuggery, then count me out.

    He is sharply critical of his own party for neglecting the interests of African-Americans but argues Democrats have taken black voters for granted.

    “Remember Domino’s Pizza? They admitted, ‘Hey, our pizza crust sucks.’ The Republican Party brand sucks and so people don’t want to be a Republican and for 80 years, African-Americans have had nothing to do with Republicans,” he said.

    That does suggest that some kind of substantive change needs to be made to improve the GOP as a product. If it’s the kind of things that pull the GOP in a more libertarian direction, they might very well be an improvement for the party. It all depends on the substance of what the changes are. Of course, he also through that “brand” thing in their, and brands have not only substantive aspects, but also packaging components. He could have in mind more flash than sizzle.

    Anon Y. Mous (8ec442)

  34. D’oh!

    threw that “brand” thing in there

    Anon Y. Mous (8ec442)

  35. Nix on the abuse of power hearings. It seems like carping or, worse, a prelude to impeachment.

    They can propose repeal of Obamacare and insert all the abuses right into their policy statements on why it should be repealed.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  36. Patricia@35, Yeah I agree. And let’s just take the senate first, too. I was raised to not count your chickens before they’re hatched. Sen Cruz himself is not running in this election. Thankfully, he’s already safely ensconced in the senate so he doesn’t need to convince anybody to vote for him this week. However, other senatorial candidates on the right DO still need to be sure enough people will vote for them tomorrow–especially Independents and disgruntled Dems. I hope not, but in my opinion Cruz may have made things a little harder for a few of those candidates while gaining absolutely nothing from this interview that would not have kept and been even better a week later when our side actually knows it will be taking the gavel in 2015. Timing in politics is important. A guy can be “honest” and a cool provocateur and still exhibit common sense, all at the same time.

    elissa (7ec47c)

  37. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Maybe you don’t want to fire up the opposition but you have to give your people a reason to go out and vote too.

    nk (dbc370)

  38. Three scenarios:

    Normal election, Dems get their people to the polls: R’s pick up MT, SD, WV, AR, LA, IA, lose none, for bare control. Gain 3-4 House seats.

    Mild wave, so-so Dem turnout: R’s pick up MT, SD, WV, AR, LA, IA, CO, AK, GA, lose none, for 54-46 control. Gain nine House seats.

    Big wave, D’s PO’d at Obama stay home, R’s flock to the polls: R’s pick up MT, SD, WV, AR, LA, IA, CO, AK, GA, KS, NH, NC, MN, VA MI, NM and OR, lose none, for 62-38 control and the entire Dem party turns on Obama. Gain 22 House seats.

    I think the mild wave is what we’ll see, but hope springs eternal.

    Kevin M (d91a9f)

  39. Note this: If the GOP does NOT take the Senate, there will be hell to pay.

    Kevin M (d91a9f)

  40. Which part of the Romney interview do you think gave Democrats fodder to scare voters to the polls?

    I was thinking more his assertion that immigration reform would be one of the firs things the GOP Senate would take up. Not so much getting Ds to the polls, but keeping Rs at home.

    Kevin M (d91a9f)

  41. oops #38 wrong thread.

    Kevin M (d91a9f)

  42. “I was thinking more his assertion that immigration reform would be one of the firs things the GOP Senate would take up. Not so much getting Ds to the polls, but keeping Rs at home.”

    Kevin M – Except that the type of immigration reform Romney was talking about would not keep R’s home. It was not Gang of 8 BS.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  43. Yes, I know that. But this whole thing has devolved to bumper-sticker words and that won’t change until after the election. Thankfully, Obama will clarify what “amnesty” really means.

    Kevin M (d91a9f)

  44. If you look at the results of the War on Poverty, one might think that it was designed by the KKK to particularly impact Blacks.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  45. I love Ted Cruz. Yet, all he can really do is lay down markers for a potential generational election in 2016.

    What nobody, and I mean NOBODY has written is that with a 51 seat majority, there are several prime candidates to be Arlen Spector, forever holding a “moderate” gun to the head of the Majority Leader. Collins from Maine is the prime candidate for this role. Of course McConnell is loathe to put forward a conservative and principled agenda anyway.

    If it manages to overcome the margin of cheat and win a majority, the GOP will be just as it has been to date with Dear Leader: Non-confrontational.

    A fight to the death over SCOTUS nominations? Hahahahahahahahaha. Dream on.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  46. Yes, he should have waited, elissa. Good point. He rankles people, on both sides of the aisle.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  47. I voted for Norman Siegel (Kaci Hickox’s lawyer) twice because that his conception of the job. Very very leftwing, but honest, and that was a good job for him.

    Sammy, I’m shocked (totally shocked!) that you’ve voted for leftists in previous elections! Based on the thrust of many of your postings here, I’d never have guessed (in a million years) which way you lean politically.

    Mark (c160ec)

  48. Debbie Poodleman was on Jake Tapper’s show and mentioned Cruz’ comments in an attempt to gin up her base. The video is at Hot Air.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/03/video-baghdad-bob-confident-that-this-invasion-will-be-repelled-also-that-obama-is-the-dems-best-asset/

    elissa (7ec47c)

  49. 47. For that office, being on the left wasn’t much of an issue. Besides, Norman Siegel is more of a civil libertarian. The important point was that he was honest and wanted to make that job into what it was intended to be. He would not have been left like the current incumbent is.

    Sammy Finkelman (9a177f)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3647 secs.