Patterico's Pontifications

8/27/2015

Ted Cruz, the True Anti-Establishment Candidate, Is Called a “Jackass” by John Boehner

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:22 pm

Donald Trump is not a conservative. Ted Cruz is. And if people are looking for a guy who’s not in lockstep with the GOP establishment, they might consider this story:

Speaker of the House John Boehner stunned audience members Wednesday evening at a Colorado fundraiser by referring to Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz as a “jackass,” two people in attendance tell The Daily Caller.

At a Steamboat Springs event for GOP Rep. Scott Tipton, the Ohio Republican quipped that he likes how Cruz’s presidential campaign keeps “that jackass” out of Washington, and from telling Boehner how to do his job.

Lots of people claim they will take on the establishment and then go to Washington and get co-opted.

Ted Cruz has shown that he can go to Washington and not be co-opted. Boehner’s nasty comment proves it.

Thanks to ThOR.

171 Responses to “Ted Cruz, the True Anti-Establishment Candidate, Is Called a “Jackass” by John Boehner”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  2. No matter what candidate you support in the GOP field, let us all agree that crying John Boehner and whiny Mitch McConnell are a couple of weak-kneed losers who need to leave DC ASAP.

    Bugg (137ba5)

  3. Boehner is just getting started for the establishment onslaught of hateful rhetoric towards Cruz. Nothing should surprise him after working with this cry-baby.

    mg (31009b)

  4. Proof? Because like the lie that McConnell personally promised him that he would do “x” instead of “y” never happened either. 2 people calling about an event? No video or audio?

    Ted Cruz was trying to mini me Trump is fading in the polls, and the constant stream of insulting the GOP and its MILLIONS of voters is a stupid strategy by him and his followers and adding in all business as well, he couldn’t handle Megyn Kelly the other day either – he needed to come up with a
    Gingrich plan of his own and he isn’t, he sits on the fence when finally pressured.

    The other candidates fail the same purity test Ted sets out for himself, he failed that purity test when he essentially admitted to Kelly that he has no plan for immigration and was going to ignore it as president.

    EPWJ (7d8e1f)

  5. Note to self: donate to Cruz campaign at next paycheck.

    bridget (d90803)

  6. guys sell your houses, take out your 401Ks send it to Ted, sure he’s pure – what could go wrong?

    Kissing up to Trump – good grief….

    Still…..

    If Ted thinks the next debate is going to go well, he’s going to get HAMMERED on deporting American children at gunpoint, he’s done, Trump will also get the same hammering.

    Cruz has real support from real voters he has a solid chance to win, Trumps supports are probably people who used to hang up the phone on pollsters, don’t vote, and never will. Cruz needs to stop acting and lead and he also needs to stop telling lies like the Texas Solicitor Generals office has thousands of employees, almost a thousand Lawyers and he supervised them, all complete lies.

    EPWJ (7d8e1f)

  7. Cruz said that the other day on Fox he supervised 700 lawyers – right now from the official Website:

    “The Solicitor General of Texas is supported by two deputies, over a dozen assistant solicitors general and a highly dedicated support staff.”

    EPWJ (7d8e1f)

  8. You’re welcome.

    Cruz is great.

    ThOR (a52560)

  9. Cruz the liar:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/03/29/cruz_on_inexperience_i_wasnt_a_community_organizer_before_i_was_elected.html

    “TED CRUZ: Well, unlike Barack Obama, I was not a community organizer before I was elected to the senate. I spent 5 1/2 years as the solicitor general of Texas, the chief lawyer for Texas in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. I supervised and led every year before the state of Texas in a 4,000 agency with over 700 lawyers.”

    EPWJ (7d8e1f)

  10. Or, how about, !Vota Felito!

    ThOR (a52560)

  11. Why is Ted repeating this lie? Do you think they are not going to call him out on it? He supervised a few dozen people, not thousands, I don’t think there is 5,000 people in the Entire State Attorney General System, a couple of thousand or so the Houston Office was rather small….

    Does he think he isn’t fact checked?

    EPWJ (7d8e1f)

  12. The Texas Solicitor General is the “top legal advisor to the Attorney General and advises other agency lawyers and state officials on complex constitutional and other legal matters.” When Greg Bott was Attorney General and Ted Cruz was Solicitor General, there were over 700 attorneys working for the State of Texas.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  13. Greg Abott.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  14. And thank you, John Boehner. A vote of no confidence from Boehner is high praise to me.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  15. DRJ

    He said in the quote above that he supervised them. He has said in other quotes that he was a supervisor of thousands, he would have been laughed off the stage and out of fundraiser meetings if he said well, once I supervised 60 people. this is the problem with Cruz, he’s a liar.

    EPWJ (7d8e1f)

  16. Boenhers go to drink makes him look older than a beat up Harry Reid.
    Cheers

    mg (31009b)

  17. what was the actual quote about Mr. Cruz being a jackass

    why is journalism so hard in failmerica

    i do not understand why this is so hard

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  18. PAT, DRJ

    And before we take reports in blogs as facts I was reading about an horrific, incident in Austria, where several dozen dead people were discovered inside a truck in the article (allegedly factual) said this astonishing statement about border fences:

    “Hungary is close to completing a razor-wire fence spanning the full 110-mile length of its border with Syria, prompting a race for migrants to reach the effective start of the Schengen Area of free movement within the EU”

    Amazing Never knew Hungary bordered Syria and Israel………..

    So, its problematic when we have so little fact checking

    EPWJ (7d8e1f)

  19. Don’t advocate voting republican rather than for Trump because you get the boners, mcconnels, mccains and gramnestys. Then you can understand Trumps popularity. If the establishment gop try to shut Trump out, his popularity will absolutely soar. We don’t need rinos.

    Jim (b6b06c)

  20. HF

    Those people who called in were obviously Cruz people, based on his failing campaign. Boehner isn’t running for president he’s going around supporting everyone raising money for individual candidates.

    EPWJ (7d8e1f)

  21. Of course, the Establishment, Big Government clown who has been caught in dishonesty after dishonesty, accuses Ted Cruz of lying. Because EPWJ can’t help himself. He lives rent-free in Ted Cruz’s head.

    Hey, EPWJ, did you ever take up Eric Blair’s or JD’s offer to assist you in testing out your “throwing a rock is not deadly” theory? Or did you ever admit to me that you didn’t know jack diddly squat about speed limits for trucks across the nation? I can answer both. No, you did not. Your lack of expertise or inside information on anything is abundantly clear, as is your willingness to dishonorably attack Conservatives.

    John Hitchcock (c78150)

  22. John

    There is the quote, its right there, also he didn’t supervise that office of a few dozen either, that’s up to a Chief Deputy who is not an appointed employee.

    The quote and the link is right there – simple google will tell you that Ted is lying about supervising “Thousands”

    EPWJ (7d8e1f)

  23. EPWJ, did you ever take up Eric Blair’s or JD’s offers to test out your thrown rock theory?

    Did you ever admit you were talking out your arse when you accused me of hiding the truth about truck speed limits on US highways? Even after it was proven you didn’t know jack diddly squat about what you were talking about?

    John Hitchcock (c78150)

  24. John,

    The quote and the link are right there….

    EPWJ (7d8e1f)

  25. EPWJ,

    This has happened before with RealClearPolitics’ transcripts but the transcript you linked is incorrect. Here is what your link says [emphasis and italics supplied]:

    TED CRUZ: Well, unlike Barack Obama, I was not a community organizer before I was elected to the senate. I spent 5 1/2 years as the solicitor general of Texas, the chief lawyer for Texas in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. I supervised and led every year before the state of Texas in a 4,000 agency with over 700 lawyers. Over the course of 5 1/2 years over and over again Texas led the nation defending conservative principles and winning.

    But here is what the video and CNN transcript quotes Cruz as saying [emphasis and italics supplied]:

    CRUZ: Well, unlike Barack Obama, I was not a community organizer before I was elected to the senate. I spent 5 1/2 years as the solicitor general of Texas, the chief lawyer for Texas in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. I supervised and led every appeal for the state of Texas in a 4,000 person agency with over 700 lawyers. And over the course of 5 1/2 years over and over again Texas led the nation defending conservative principles and winning.

    As Texas Solicitor General, I believe it’s true that Cruz supervised every appeal in the Attorney General’s office, which includes over 700 attorneys.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  26. Why are you afraid to answer my questions, EPWJ? Bill Clinton is more honest than you.

    John Hitchcock (c78150)

  27. I first noticed Real Clear Politics has questionable transcripts in this story about Ted Cruz. I thought it was strange at the time. Now I wonder if it’s intentional.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  28. DRJ

    I heard the interview Live he did not first of all do the things he said and in other interviews said he supervised thousands, he didn’t.

    EPWJ (0181e3)

  29. John,

    Why are you afraid to confront the fact that Ted lies?

    EPWJ (0181e3)

  30. EPWJ: he said he supervised an agency with thousands of employees, not that he supervised thousands of employees.

    That is in the section you quoted. Either you are too intellectually inhibited to understand the difference between supervising an agency and supervising people, or you’re a liar.

    Which is it?

    bridget (37b281)

  31. EPWJ,

    You linked the video and anyone who wants to can listen to it. Cruz said what the CNN transcript says he said:

    I supervised and led every appeal for the state of Texas in a 4,000 person agency with over 700 lawyers.

    You are focusing on the words “supervised and led” but you can’t ignore that what he claims to have “supervised and led” is “every appeal.” That’s true.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  32. bridget,

    I think Cruz said he supervised and led every appeal in the agency, not the agency itself.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  33. Are you now saying Cruz made different claims in other interviews, EPWJ? Please link them.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  34. Bridget, DRJ

    This isn’t the first time he’s been called out on this

    EPWJ (0181e3)

  35. Ted’s own LinkedIn page:

    Ted served as the chief appellate lawyer for the State of Texas, leading a team of 15 appellate attorneys in the Office of the Solicitor General and supervising every appeal, civil and criminal, in state and federal court, on behalf of the State, its agencies, and its officials.

    EPWJ (0181e3)

  36. Malarky, EPWJ.

    mg (31009b)

  37. Links, please, EPWJ. Your quote from the LinkedIn page, if true, is consistent with my point above. Cruz only claims to have supervised appeals, not the entire agency.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  38. Note Cruz was hired by Boehner as his lawyer against Jim McDermitt

    EPWJ (0181e3)

  39. We all misspeak at times but Cruz seems remarkably consistent and accurate in his speaking. He should get credit for that, EPWJ, but I guess you can’t do that.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  40. I supervised and led every year before the state of Texas in a 4,000 agency with over 700 lawyers

    Simply not true

    EPWJ (0181e3)

  41. Note EPWJ has been caught being dishonest many times, over a period of many years, by many trusted Conservatives on this site.

    John Hitchcock (c78150)

  42. And here he is, being flagrantly dishonest yet again, regarding the very quote DRJ corrected — and gave the video to. EPWJ lied about Ted Cruz. Must be a day beginning with a consonant.

    John Hitchcock (c78150)

  43. In 1998, Boehner hired the law firm of Cooper and Kirk to represent him in suing Congressman McDermott. Cruz worked for the law firm and someone else handled the lawsuit when Cruz left the firm that year.

    Boehner mentioned Cruz and the lawsuit last year on the Jay Leno Tonight Show, where he called Ted Cruz a “good guy.” Now he calls Cruz a jackass. My guess is that Boehner likes people when they are for him but he doesn’t like people when they are against him.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  44. Now all we need to do is get a Democrat candidate that Obama or Shrillary are prepared to denounce, and a good time can be had by all…..

    C. S. P. Schofield (ab2cdc)

  45. EPWJ:

    41.I supervised and led every year before the state of Texas in a 4,000 agency with over 700 lawyers

    Simply not true

    That’s not what Cruz said. I showed you above what Cruz actually said and why it’s true. Why do you do this?

    DRJ (1dff03)

  46. DRJ

    He needs to quit being what his advisors say and get a platform to run on, answer direct questions on his stances, and come up with a platform. My Parents like him but say he’s not saying anything but generalities

    EPWJ (0181e3)

  47. Why does EPWJ do what he has been doing on this, and other, sites for the past 7 years or longer? Because out of the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks. He speaks dishonestly constantly, because his heart is dishonest.

    John Hitchcock (c78150)

  48. DRJ

    That’s what he said, he made several statements, even in the one you mentioned HE DIDNT DO THAT either – that was a total and complete fabrication, he’s one person he could not supervise the daily legal activities of thousands of people especially when he wasn’t there some of the time.

    EPWJ (0181e3)

  49. If it’s about Cruz, and Eric (EPWJ) says it, it’s a lie.

    But here’s Obama on Boenher. I know mg will like it, at least.

    nk (dbc370)

  50. Get back to your dishonest accusation against Cruz. Admit that your accusation was not based on any facts.

    John Hitchcock (c78150)

  51. I have to congratulate EPWJ. He got nk and me to agree on something. That’s not the easiest task in the world to accomplish. Too bad we have to agree that EPWJ is lying, yet again.

    John Hitchcock (c78150)

  52. I haven’t heard everything Cruz has said in his many campaign appearances, nor have you, but it’s early yet. We will learn the policies and platforms for all the candidates in time. I know from watching Cruz in Texas that he supports many things I support, so I will be happy with him. I hope other people will agree, but not everyone will and that’s politics.

    However, I’m glad Cruz sticks to his principles, because that’s not how modern politics usually works. Fortunately it often works that way with Cruz.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  53. John,

    Teds now saying he directed every single legal brief in Texas on behalf of the government – at what point is this spew going to pass while he was teaching law school across town at the same time?

    Was he cloned?

    EPWJ (0181e3)

  54. I am incredibly impressed at the contortions EPWJ is subjecting himself in order to avoid answering DRJ’s challenge.

    One last time, EPWJ, show us a real citation for the quote that is substantially different from the version DRJ quoted, or have the good grace to withdraw that particular complaint.

    JVW (ba78f9)

  55. DRJ

    He had to remove the claims he made from his own website during the primary – this isn’t the first time he’s spewed this nonsense’

    He actually has other solid experience to me that is more impressive than a 500 record in front of the SC. He has done significant things in trade but he never ever mentions it much, why?

    EPWJ (0181e3)

  56. Let me add that Cruz supervised a lot of appeals. Not only does the Texas Solicitor General supervise all criminal and civil appeals involving the State of Texas, it directly handles the most important ones:

    As the chief appellate lawyer for the State of Texas, the Solicitor General supervises all appellate litigation on behalf of the Office of the Attorney General. The Office of Solicitor General (OSG) approves all civil and criminal appeals in state and federal courts involving the state, its agencies and its officials. OSG also directly handles those appeals determined to be most significant to Texas and to the development of federal and state jurisprudence and appears on occasion in federal and state trial courts on matters implicating the state’s most critical interests. In addition, OSG regularly authors amicus curiae briefs for submission to the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts across the nation.

    In addition, while he was Solicitor General:

    Cruz was Texas’ Solicitor General from 2003 to 2008, appointed by Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is leaving that office in January after being elected Texas’ next Governor. During that time, Cruz authored 80 U.S. Supreme Court briefs and argued before the nation’s highest court in nine cases, five of which had successful results, including District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down Washington D.C.’s handgun ban, and Van Orden v. Perry, which defended the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol.

    That’s impressive.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  57. JVW I showed the statement both statements leave the avg viewer that his was in charge of a multi thousand agency, the VERY FACT THAT HIS LINKEDIN statement REFUTES what he said in the interview is proof emough.

    Ted says he supervised 15 lawyers, on his resume that is online now, no where did it say thousands, or every brief and appeal

    In fairness I have contacted one of those from the DC story who said he heard it – hope he makes a statement that I will forward to Pat

    EPWJ (0181e3)

  58. Oh, EPWJ, winning five out of nine (55%) Supreme Court cases (which you say is a “500 record”) is an amazing statistic. John Roberts is lauded as the best modern Supreme Court litigator and he won an incredible 25 out of 39 cases, or 64%. They are both excellent at what they do.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  59. What Eric says about Cruz is not important. Were they serving booze at that fundraiser? Boehner likes to have a cocktail or four at country clubs.

    nk (dbc370)

  60. DRJ

    In Abbotts official statement when Ted left he praised him but he praised Ted for 2 paragraphs gave Ted 2 pararagraphs of good wishes and then went on about the BRILLIANT Deputy Chief solicitor, that’s gotta suck.

    Deputy Solicitor General Sean Jordan will continue serving as the top lieutenant in the Office of the Solicitor General. A former U.S. Army paratrooper, Jordan graduated from the University of Texas School of Law with honors in 1994. After becoming a litigation partner at Jackson Walker, LLP, Jordan returned to public service, leaving his partnership to join the Office of the Solicitor General.

    Sean Jordan is an outstanding lawyer whose commitment to public service is rivaled only by his leadership ability, Attorney General Abbott said. We are fortunate to have Sean as a senior lawyer and member of our leadership team. As a former Texas Supreme Court Justice, I have worked with many accomplished attorneys, yet Sean Jordan stands out as among the brightest, most impressive lawyers I have encountered.

    Ted is impressive, and a liar.

    EPWJ (0181e3)

  61. EPWJ, unless I am missing something, you have provided two main citations for your claim that Cruz is lying about his duties: the Real Clear Politics page (which links to a CNN video with Dana Bash), and a CNN page to which you do not provide a link, which I am guessing is of the exact same interview.

    DRJ already demonstrated (and a quick perusal of the video confirms) that the RCP transcript is incorrect, yet rather than acknowledging this and moving on you are still stuck on it. You then make some reference to a LinkedIn page and then “several statements,” none of which you can cite, or some other apparently irrefutable source. It’s fine if you don’t like Ted Cruz, but at some point you have to quit doubling down on wrong information.

    JVW (ba78f9)

  62. DRJ

    Abbott said he argued 8 times, – more misstatements by Ted Cruz?

    From The Office of the Solicitor General:

    Ho will succeed Ted Cruz, who served with distinction as Solicitor General of Texas for nearly five and a half years. Cruz graduated from Harvard Law School and clerked for the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. When Cruz leaves state service later this spring, he will have argued before the United States Supreme Court eight times more than any other lawyer in Texas

    Facts hurt

    EPWJ (0181e3)

  63. In Abbotts official statement when Ted left he praised him but he praised Ted for 2 paragraphs gave Ted 2 pararagraphs of good wishes and then went on about the BRILLIANT Deputy Chief solicitor, that’s gotta suck.

    Oh well, hell, that’s irrefutable proof: for Abbot to spend the “official statement” (again, unsurprisingly lacking a link) talking about the new guy rather than the guy who was leaving, well that obviously shows that Abbot thinks Cruz is a liar. You win, sir. Your logic is waterproof.

    (And yeah, that’s sarcasm.)

    JVW (ba78f9)

  64. EPWJ is a long-term well-known liar. He lies constantly and then shucks and jives when called on his lies. And sometimes, even when he’s proven to be a liar, he continues making the same statement that was already proven to be a lie. It’s what EPWJ does.

    John Hitchcock (c78150)

  65. . . . he will have argued before the United States Supreme Court eight times more than any other lawyer in Texas.

    Eight times more. Does that mean x + 8 or does that mean x * 8? How about finding the raw numbers for comparison?

    JVW (ba78f9)

  66. JVW,

    Ted lied on many things, in fact he’s right now lying about his stance on immigration and was called out on it on the 25th

    Ted needs to stop the stretching and exaggerating and the postulating and get on with the job of being someone who thinks that the non voting block the trump supporters are going to catrry him over the finish line.

    His IS A BRILLIANT GUY, he is VERY HARD WORKING, he has many admirable qualities, and he wants to suck up to a notable liar? He needs to make his own case and quit taking the credit for career brave soldier lawyers who really did the work at the Solicitor Generals office.

    Greg Abbott directed the office of the Solicitor General and directly supervised the staff, Ted was just another VERY IMPORTANT employee, period.

    EPWJ (0181e3)

  67. Is the Left’s favorite economist (who is wrong all the time) an Ivy League professor or a NYT author? You can’t do both at the same time, according to EPWJ’s logic.

    John Hitchcock (c78150)

  68. And whether Abbot was saying Cruz argued eight times as often as any other lawyer or eight more times than any other lawyer, it’s pretty clear that your claim that Abbot is arguing that Cruz only argued eight times would mean that the next most in Texas is a bunch of lawyers tied with zero appearances.

    JVW (ba78f9)

  69. JVW

    8 times, more than any other solicitor General. there is a comma missing in the press release, which is not uncommon.

    Also he was the longest serving SG in history in Texas so that’s another exaggeration of legal prowess when it was due more to longevity.

    EPWJ (0181e3)

  70. Also by EPWJ logic, if a national sales manager has ten district managers under him who in turn each have eight sales reps, and if in total these 80 sales reps drive $200,000,000 in revenue, then that national sales manager better not be trying to say that he supervised an operation that brought in $200 million in revenue because he didn’t directly participate in every sales call or something.

    JVW (ba78f9)

  71. JVW

    Under your logic two completely conflicting statements by Ted Cruz are both truthful. On his personal resume he departs Exactly what he actually did, and on the TV running for office he says something much different

    Ummm okay…

    EPWJ (0181e3)

  72. thanks for the laugh, nk. Obama no lie.

    mg (31009b)

  73. Since the LinkedIn comports with the actual quote of what he said, and not what you demand he said despite proof to the contrary, then there is no lie in what he said in either instance. But there is a lie in what you are saying. Because that’s what you do. You tell a falsehood and then stick to your falsehood despite proof otherwise. And then you go on to ignoring people who point out your blatant lies, as if by ignoring them, your blatant lies will disappear and be forgotten. They won’t.

    John Hitchcock (c78150)

  74. 8 times, more than any other solicitor General. there is a comma missing in the press release, which is not uncommon.

    OK, but what are we arguing about here? Abbot says Cruz argued in front of the Supreme Court 8 times, Cruz thinks the number is nine (according to something DRJ quoted above). Even if Cruz is off by one, does this make him a liar or simply a guy who thinks he was part of one more USSC argument than his boss thinks he was?

    . . . on the TV running for office he says something much different.

    You are still stuck on the incorrect transcript on RCP, even though it has been pointed out to you. Cruz never said he supervised thousands of lawyers, he said he supervised appeals in an office of 700 lawyers. You seem determined to believe he claimed to have supervised 700 lawyers. Listen closely at the 1:20 mark of the CNN video and you will quickly see that the transcript is wrong. It really is as simple as that.

    JVW (ba78f9)

  75. JVW

    You are now into the realm of stretching to fit indefensible statements, Ted said he was at the center of a multidivision office when he was an appointed non supervisory employee. He was directly supervised by his superiors at the AG';s office, the SG staff were professional lawyers with decades of experience and some were combat veterans.

    Period, end of story, but keep twisting the last AG we elected was Nixon, and he was VP for arguably the most popular US president in the last 50 years.

    Again Ted is great and he needs to employ all his experiences and his views, his resume isn’t resonating with the American people just as my or my wifes super charges resumes resonate with everyone. People want a figurehead a pedestal mounted figure – after all we elected OBama, Truman, Carter, in the last 60 years – so elections aren’t perfect – he needs to start fighting.

    Cruz needs to

    EPWJ (0181e3)

  76. EPWJ, you are now lying about JVW. When will your compounded lies ever quit?

    John Hitchcock (c78150)

  77. yes he is always lying, day ending in y

    narciso (ee1f88)

  78. Cruz’s Senate website says he argued 43 oral arguments, “including 9 before the U.S. Supreme Court.” That includes his time as Solicitor General and in private practice at a law firm in Houston — probably 8 as Solicitor General and 1 in private practice.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  79. Ted said he was at the center of a multidivision office. . .

    Bullshit. Your outrageous imagination and inability to comprehend the English language is not Ted Cruz’s fault.

    JVW (ba78f9)

  80. Maybe that was unfair. Sorry.

    Change “inability to comprehend the English language” to “willingness to believe an inaccurate transcript in spite of the actual video being right in front of you.”

    JVW (ba78f9)

  81. The weeping orange man doesn’t like Ted Cruz.

    Sounds like an endorsement to me.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  82. meghan’s coward daddy sure has been timid and quiet lately

    happyfeet (831175)

  83. Ok, mg and happyfeet will like this one. Actually, I think it will poll better than Trump.

    nk (dbc370)

  84. DRJ

    Its 8.

    EPWJ (0181e3)

  85. he lies and lies like how harry reid lies about falling off his exercycle

    happyfeet (831175)

  86. Funny, nk. With my 2 favorite colors.

    mg (31009b)

  87. EPWJ, what’s the speed limit for trucks in Texas? Or Utah? Or Wyoming?

    There’s just so much you claim you know better than anyone else, that you don’t know beans about. You have been caught in so many lies over the years, and on more than just this website, that anyone with an ounce of character would be ashamed to show up again.

    John Hitchcock (c78150)

  88. Good Allah. All I had to do was read the title of the post to know that EPWJ was being an imbecile.

    JD (34f761)

  89. You got that right, JD. In spades.

    John Hitchcock (c78150)

  90. Everyone go watch the actual video, this especially means you EPWJ, and then kindly point out if you think EPWJ’s version or DRJ/JVW’s version is more accurate. Go!

    I’ll start. EPWJ is a congenital liar, and DRJ/JVW are 110% correct.

    JD (81a25b)

  91. I don’t have watch no video if DRJ tells me what it says. You can take what DRJ says to the bank. And Eric’s “boehner” for Cruz is by now well-known to all. I think Cruz must have run over his pet turtle or something.

    nk (dbc370)

  92. Nk – watch the video. Don’t make your assessment based on EPWJ being a habitual liar and fabulist. Don’t make your assessment on DRJ and JVW being obsessively fair and fact-based. Make an assessment simply on the video.

    JD (34f761)

  93. Donna Brazile, a prominent Democratic political operative, praised President George W. Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina on Thursday, just hours before President Obama’s speech in New Orleans marking the storm’s 10th anniversary.

    Brazile, a Louisiana native, has applauded Bush’s Katrina response before. But she made her latest comments on board Air Force One while flying to the Big Easy with Obama, who has previously criticized’s his predecessor’s handling of the storm recovery.

    Under President Bush’s leadership, we got it right,” she told reporters.

    happyfeet (831175)

  94. I prefer Walker and Fiorina to Cruz, but I’d still gladly support a guy who opposes Obamacare (something Republicans were put back in charge of Congress to deal with), acts like he actually wants the job*, and can shut down gotcha moments like that recent Ellen Page confrontation. Boehner’s a slob and too gutless to call out Cruz to his face.

    * To elaborate on that point, Cruz has fire in this campaign. He wants the job. I see the same in Walker, Fiorina, Rubio, Jindal, and maybe some others who I haven’t been paying closer attention to. Even Trump seems like he wants the job, though I’d say it’s just pure ego for him. Some of the other candidates, though, seem to be going through the motions like they’ve got nothing better to do. That’s actually my biggest problem with Jeb.

    There’s a lot I disagree with Jeb on, but watching him give speeches and perform at the debate, I just get this air of he’s doing this out of formality. It’s so boring. I’m too young to remember the way his father campaigned, but I remember Dubya being quite enthused and eager for the chance to be president. Everyone has thought about what it’d be like to be president at one time or another; it’s that special and important. Jeb just seems so disinterested in campaigning, and I don’t think it’s just because he thought this whole thing would be a cakewalk. He just doesn’t seem like he wants to be there. Maybe he should’ve listened to his mother.

    tops116 (d094f8)

  95. Yes, I went and did. The transcript does not say what Cruz said. Eric, redeem yourself by watching and listening, too.

    CNN also left something else out of the transcript:
    SEN. TED CRUZ: True enough, but I think there are a lot more notable differences between us [him and Obama] than the similarities. Among other things, I don’t need to lie to my wife when she asks me “Do these pants make my butt look big?”

    I’m joking, on that second thing. Cruz is not Trump. He would never say something like that.

    nk (dbc370)

  96. EPWJ will never admit he said something out of turn. Why do I know this? Because he has a very long history, much more than merely a trend, of being mendacious. The next Cruz thread, he’ll spout his crap, and if someone mentions this thread, he won’t even acknowledge the fact this thread was mentioned. He’ll just keep on lying. Because that’s all that is in his heart to do.

    John Hitchcock (c78150)

  97. Let’s break this down. In comment 9, EPWJ said:

    Cruz the liar:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/03/29/cruz_on_inexperience_i_wasnt_a_community_organizer_before_i_was_elected.html

    “TED CRUZ: Well, unlike Barack Obama, I was not a community organizer before I was elected to the senate. I spent 5 1/2 years as the solicitor general of Texas, the chief lawyer for Texas in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. I supervised and led every year before the state of Texas in a 4,000 agency with over 700 lawyers.”

    Subsequently, in comment 25, DRJ corrected EPWJ:

    EPWJ,

    This has happened before with RealClearPolitics’ transcripts but the transcript you linked is incorrect. Here is what your link says [emphasis and italics supplied]:

    TED CRUZ: Well, unlike Barack Obama, I was not a community organizer before I was elected to the senate. I spent 5 1/2 years as the solicitor general of Texas, the chief lawyer for Texas in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. I supervised and led every year before the state of Texas in a 4,000 agency with over 700 lawyers. Over the course of 5 1/2 years over and over again Texas led the nation defending conservative principles and winning.

    But here is what the video and CNN transcript quotes Cruz as saying [emphasis and italics supplied]:

    CRUZ: Well, unlike Barack Obama, I was not a community organizer before I was elected to the senate. I spent 5 1/2 years as the solicitor general of Texas, the chief lawyer for [the state of] Texas in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. I supervised and led every appeal for the state of Texas in a 4,000 person agency with over 700 lawyers. And over the course of 5 1/2 years over and over again Texas led the nation defending conservative principles and winning.

    As Texas Solicitor General, I believe it’s true that Cruz supervised every appeal in the Attorney General’s office, which includes over 700 attorneys.

    That is accurate, with the emendation I have supplied in brackets, adding the words “the state of” before “Texas” when Cruz said the key phrase being disputed here: “I spent 5 1/2 years as the solicitor general of Texas, the chief lawyer for the state of Texas in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.” Other than those three words I had to add, DRJ’s transcript from CNN is accurate in every respect, including the disputed sentence: “I supervised and led every appeal for the state of Texas in a 4,000 person agency with over 700 lawyers.”

    This can be proven by actually going to the video and watching it, here. As JVW said, listen to 1:20, in particular 1:26, and you can see this is correct.

    THEN (to round out the chronology), EPWJ restated the incorrect version of the statement from the Real Clear Politics version of the transcript, in comment 41:

    I supervised and led every year before the state of Texas in a 4,000 agency with over 700 lawyers

    Simply not true

    What is simply not true, EPWJ, is that Cruz said this in that video.

    Here’s what you need to do now, EPWJ:

    1) Acknowledge that the video YOU provided a link for does not say what you claimed it said. It said what DRJ claimed.
    2) There is no number 2, for right now at least. Look at #1 again.

    I do not care to hear about mysterious other quotes for which you have no links, or disputes about how many times he has argued in the Supreme Court, until you address point #1. Should you be tempted to do anything in your next comment other than address point #1, stop. Do not succumb to that temptation. Instead, address point #1.

    I am irritated at having to lay this all out. Address point #1 please.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  98. tl;dr version:

    Admit the quote you have been providing from the RCP video is false. Do not take any other action until this admission has been made. Do not even think about saying anything else until this admission is made.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  99. Pat

    I provided not only a link but the link to the video. In His exit statement, in his LinkedIn profile, none of this SUPERVISION of thousands of employees of all their work etc was mentioned.

    Really this is tedious, its plain. He neither supervised the daily activities of all 700 lawyers and oversaw their work.

    He clearly insinuated he was supervisor, not so.

    EPWJ (0181e3)

  100. Nope. This is not hard. I need your attention.

    You made a claim that in the RCP video, Cruz said:

    I supervised and led every year before the state of Texas in a 4,000 agency with over 700 lawyers.

    He did not say that in that video. Admit that he did not say that. Do not run your mouth about anything else until you have admitted that.

    I am being very clear here.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  101. There is plenty of time to discuss other things once you have done this. But this is a clear error. The error has been pointed out to you, multiple times now, and you need to admit this. Now.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  102. We’ve been down this path before. If Ted Cruz is mentioned, this EPWJ creature crawls out and spews. After his attacks on Cruz a couple of weeks ago, I purchased Cruz’s book, and surprise, every episode EPWJ mentioned was addressed in the book, but remarkably, none of EPWJ’s assertions were born out by the book. It was quite the contrary.

    So either EPWJ is a very poor reader, a common failing these days, or, more likely, he intentionally misrepresents what Cruz has said.

    There’s nothing to be gained by responding to EPWJ.

    It’s too bad we can’t discuss Cruz in a useful way on this blog. It’s a signal to noise ratio problem and it won’t improve as long a EPWJ has a huge portion of the bandwidth.

    bobathome (279337)

  103. ‘this is why we can’t have nice things’

    narciso (ee1f88)

  104. He’s not going to be on the blog any more if he doesn’t admit what I am requiring him to admit, in his next comment.

    Is that clear enough, EPWJ? Admit this immediately or you are gone.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  105. Cruz’s book is great, by the way. I think I may send him $75 just to get an autographed version.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  106. I’m sorry you are home sick but it’s great that you have time to comment. It’s like old times.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  107. An EPWJ-free Pat’s Ponts? I’m giddy with excitement over the possibility!

    John Hitchcock (c78150)

  108. Old times:
    Eric Blair, spork, stash, Patterico, pretty Dana, ugly Dana all commenting on an article DRJ wrote.

    John Hitchcock (c78150)

  109. EPWJ,

    I’m not trying to pull a power play, just so we’re clear. It’s just that the facts on this one isolated point are beyond dispute — and for anyone to have a conversation with you, they have to trust you to the extent that they know you will acknowledge the truth when the truth is this plain. If you can’t, you’re not adding value, you’re subtracting value. I hope you can. But you need to focus on what I am asking you, in plain English.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  110. I’m sorry you are home sick but it’s great that you have time to comment. It’s like old times.

    I’ll be back to work tomorrow. I have felt OK most of the day, but I needed rest. I felt horrible yesterday. I have had this flu for about a week and it sucks all motivation to do anything right out of you. But it is temporary and I am not inclined to whine about something so minor, even if I just did in this very paragraph.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  111. Whoa… what happened to this thread?!

    Actually, I don’t want to know. All I know is that whatever EPwhatshisname quotes, it may or may not be accurate, and regardless, it’s different than what he says it says.

    bridget (37b281)

  112. But getting back to bugg’s point before this digression:

    I certainly agree that Mitch McConnell is probably the major roadblock to all that is good. He sits in the Senate, unwilling to act, protecting the ONLY thing that give the Dems any power at all as if it was Holy Writ. Nuke the filibuster and all things become possible as the Dems will have to sustain 100 unpopular vetoes before the election. But no.

    As for Boehner, I don’t know if he is simply being pragmatic, knowing that anything the House passes that might do any good will be lost in McConnell’s swamp, or whether he’s just as bad.

    McConnell needs to go. This week would be good.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  113. EPWJ is a long-term well-known liar. He lies constantly and then shucks and jives when called on his lies.

    Beyond that, I can’t figure out exactly what makes EPWJ tick, ideologically if not ethically, or visa versa. I know he’s certainly not a staunch conservative, but I’m not sure how squish-squish he is in general. I’ve definitely had my doubts about him ever since it was known he was a supporter of Dede Scozzafava.

    Mark (dc566c)

  114. Except with all the digression, I forgot completely about the jackass comment. OK, Boehner needs to go, too. Wish I knew who’d replace him though. I regret trading Gingrich for Hastert.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  115. and why do you think they went the extra mile to keep McDaniel, Bevin, et al out,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  116. You know what I haven’t seen? I haven’t seen the drumbeat of “Trump Is a white supremacist” on every nightly news cast and on the front page of every paper that I would expect to see when the leading Republican presidential candidate says the things that Trump says. I mean you do see it here and there, especially in smaller-audience places, but it isn’t the main thing leading every story about Trump like you would expect.

    I saw far more outrage when Rush Limbaugh said that a black quarterback wasn’t all that good. I think I even saw more outrage when Don Imus made that funny remark about a women’s basketball team.

    It’s almost like the professional press establishment is going along to give Trump free publicity and stoke the controversy but doesn’t actually want to do anything that might torpedo his candidacy and destroy his hopes for a third-party run.

    Cugel (e574ce)

  117. Trump is working for Hillary. Dirtying the Republican brand. Nothing more than that. The “press” will help him keep doing it, not hinder him.

    nk (dbc370)

  118. EPWJ may think he is going to just ignore this and float in on some other thread. If he has not made the admission by the time I go to bed tonight, he’s moderated so that that will not happen.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  119. Trump is working for Hillary. Dirtying the Republican brand.

    Given Republicans like Boehner or Jeb Bush, with all their closeted-liberal qualities, I don’t know whether Trump is necessarily much worse than they are. I imagine hanging out for decades with the thousands of limousine liberals who populate the world of Manhattan would make it tough for anyone but a staunch, dyed-in-the-wool rightwinger to keep one’s ideological sanity and independence.

    I do find it fascinating that the most staunch conservative among the candidates, Ted Cruz, has chosen — for tactical reasons, perhaps — to not publicly slam or dismiss Trump as people like Jeb have done.

    BTW, Patterico in another thread said that Obama at least pretends to follow the law, giving Barry the benefit of the doubt he doesn’t give to Trump. Whether Trump will be a slimeball — both publicly and privately — when it comes to the Constitution is open to debate, but why anyone would perceive that the words coming out of Obama’s lips since 2008 about similar matters haven’t been a bunch of arrogant BS is beyond me.

    Mark (dc566c)

  120. BTW, Patterico in another thread said that Obama at least pretends to follow the law, giving Barry the benefit of the doubt he doesn’t give to Trump.

    Oh, you think Trump will pretend to follow the law while having no intention of doing so? Because that’s what I said Obama does.

    [W]hy anyone would perceive that the words coming out of Obama’s lips since 2008 about similar matters haven’t been a bunch of arrogant BS is beyond me.

    It’s beyond me too, and I’ll thank you not to suggest I have said otherwise, because that would be either dishonest or ignorant.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  121. Patterico, I recall back in 2009 your getting into a bit of a tiff here with a few of the forumers over your saying that you thought that Obama was basically a good man. I felt such sentiment wasn’t necessarily justified based on the trashy nature of the guy, but didn’t find it all that worth arguing over one way or the other.

    For the past few weeks you’ve not held back in slamming and razzing Trump, but I’m assuming you’ll at least say he’s basically a good guy. Or not?

    Mark (dc566c)

  122. Because that’s what I said Obama does.

    Maybe it’s a matter of perception or semantics because I don’t know what Obama does that makes it appear to you he at least pretends to follow the law, while your cynicism and skepticism about Trump are so ramped up to make you theorize that he, by comparison, will flagrantly proclaim to the onlooking public, “to hell with the US Constitution, the federal and state courts, my Attorney General, etc”?

    Mark (dc566c)

  123. Good Allah, Mark.

    JD (98e661)

  124. EPWJ,

    In response to your two comments in moderation:

    Neither provides the required admission.

    This is not rocket science. You made a false assertion. I noticed. I am demanding you retract it.

    The commentariat thinks you won’t, because they think you are fundamentally dishonest.

    I am not making such a claim. I am just saying that my demand is fair and very simple, and it is not negotiable.

    As far as your blah blah blah, I didn’t read it, except to the extent that I needed to in order to determine that you had not complied with my very simple, reasonable, and straightforward demand.

    Make the admission or you’re done. It’s very, very, very simple.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  125. I’m beginning to think the commentariat is right. I’m just not sure why that is.

    But I am getting to the point where I would bet a lot of money that you will never admit that you totally got this wrong, even though the evidence is irrefutable that you did.

    If you can’t see how this is a problem, then you have a problem. It’s your problem. Not ours. Not mine. Yours.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  126. FWIW the comments in moderation have f-all to do with the topic at hand. EPWJ is still butt her over Dewhurst getting beat by a non-establishment candidate. Which is as common of a theme a his lying, making shlt up, and otherwise being a mendoucheous twatwaffle.

    JD (98e661)

  127. Third comment in moderation. It’s like we sound to a dog

    BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

    The one thing I know is that it does NOT say

    “Pat, you’re right. I made a claim about what Cruz said in that video, and I was wrong. He did not say that.”

    That, or its equivalent, is what your comment needs to say, Eric.

    It’s really every bit that simple.

    Show people you’re not a liar, or leave them (and me) with the distinct impression that, at a minimum, you do not care in the slightest whether your assertions are accurate.

    The latter attitude is fatal to your ability to participate here.

    Period. Do you hear me? Period.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  128. FWIW the comments in moderation have f-all to do with the topic at hand.

    That is absolutely true. The topic at hand is all that matters.

    Admit the obvious or disappear from my sight.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  129. Is there a sentient being, reading this thread, who is in doubt concerning what I am requiring of EPWJ?

    Have I been unclear in any way? Even slightly?

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  130. You know, I’m at the point where I just don’t care about certain things. I don’t even know or care how many people read this blog any more — since SiteMeter started melting the site, I got rid of it, and have not found a suitable replacement. The absolute volume of traffic may have plummeted or it may not have. It just doesn’t matter to me any more.

    What matters is that the people whose opinion I respect stick around and talk to me. The rest of you can go f**k yourselves.

    And if someone either won’t admit when they’re wrong — or are so mentally or linguistically challenged that they can’t process a very straightforward demand (not request — “demand”) that they do so — then I just can’t bring myself to care what they have to say. I just don’t want them corrupting my discussions with the people I do care about.

    I have been very fair and very clear about this. If someone wants to put themselves into the category of people who say (by words or actions): “I will not be truthful or even acknowledge a demand that I act in a truthful manner” . . . that’s on them. It’s not on me. It’s on them.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  131. Patterico – we could revisit the lies be told about Palin, how the WFP candidate Scozzafava was the conservative candidate, counting Jews and Christians in Yemen and Iran, whether or not rock throwing is something harmless or a threat of death, or how Murkowski is yet another true conservative choice … Add in a few veiled BS threats to employers, not-employers, and made up stories about hanging out in the slums of Jakarta during international business conferences …

    JD (98e661)

  132. There are people I have to ban periodically. I just got through banning Christoph for the umpteenth million time. I am certain I have banned EPWJ before. This just makes me feel really good about doing it again.

    I don’t think of my blog as being that important. Is it possible people are paying these folks to troll me and/or spread false narratives? If so, their operation has to be pretty damned extensive — because, again, I don’t think of my blog as being that important.

    Option #2 is that I just have a knack for attracting remarkably persistent and dishonest trolls.

    Option #3 is that humanity is just this sh*tty and this is my proportionate share.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  133. I vote for #3

    JD (98e661)

  134. What a lovely thought

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  135. Option #4, humanity is crap, and your share of it is disproportionately small, having already rid yourself of some of it, and shown the willingness to do it; thus, keeping some of the crap away before they even try.

    John Hitchcock (120fdf)

  136. Stop it. This is one of the best comment sections on the internet, with a great bunch of commenters, and it attracts a lot of people who want to participate. Like honey attracts bees, bears, and flies.

    nk (dbc370)

  137. I got a fevah and the only cure is less PeeWee…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  138. 133. Patterico – we could revisit the lies…

    JD (98e661) — 8/27/2015 @ 11:36 pm

    There is just so much there there, JD, that we could revisit.

    I recall arguing with him over some arcane point concerning the Military Sealift Command. I don’t really remember what it was. I do recall the point he was trying to make was just really, really wrong. And kind of dumb.

    What I do recall is that I was amazed he would even attempt to argue it. Logistics wasn’t my field, but in the course of 20 years and some amount of sea time you pick up a thing or two.

    There’s a lot I don’t know (ask me a question about nuclear reactors) but I know some things, and I recall providing link after link that any normal person should have found devastating to their argument. Not EPWJ. It was fascinating in a weird way, like how you can’t look away from a car wreck.

    The rest of us can look at the video and see and hear Ted Cruz for ourselves. And still EPWJ will argue with us. Because he hates Cruz, apparently, and no falsehood is beneath him.

    I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for him to admit to the facts.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  139. So the useless POS crowd is reduced to casting vulgar aspersions against uncowed critics whom they have become helpless to counter in the court of public opinion.

    ESAD.

    DNF (755a85)

  140. I’m not sure who DNF is aiming at with his scatter gun.

    John Hitchcock (d91027)

  141. I believe I’ve seen the DNF moniker before, but if I hadn’t, my first impression from what he said would be an EPWJ sock getting around the moderation filter in order to whine and be vulgar while accusing his accusers of whining vulgarity.

    John Hitchcock (d91027)

  142. 142. How’s about Bohner for openers?

    DNF (755a85)

  143. He’s not helpless, DNF. All he has to do is just admit to the facts, the words that we can all hear for ourselves.

    Pat has been very clear about this.

    It is entirely within his control.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  144. EPWJ is in moderation saying he stands by his statement. But he is sorry that I am upset by Cruz’s misstatements and bad showing in the polls. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, EPWJ.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  145. This is a great website. As nk said, it attracts people because it has something good to offer people, especially in the posts but also in the comments.

    Note to Eric: You relied on the transcript posted by Real Clear Politics (RCP) to make a point about Ted Cruz. It would have been a valid point if the transcript were accurate, but it wasn’t accurate. The CNN transcript and the video itself show that just one word was wrong in the RCP transcript, but it made a huge difference in what Cruz said. Everyone can understand that it wasn’t your fault that you relied on the RCP transcript. It could happen to anyone. What I and others don’t understand is why you wouldn’t acknowledge that the RCP transcript was wrong once it was pointed out. That’s all Patterico wants you to say.

    Finally, this is the second time RCP’s transcripts have been wrong about a Cruz statement in a way that makes him look wrong or untruthful, which is curious. Maybe all the transcripts are wrong or maybe it’s only Cruz’s, but I hope I remember to never believe an RCP transcript.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  146. I don’t understand EPWJ.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  147. So the useless POS crowd is reduced to casting vulgar aspersions against uncowed critics whom they have become helpless to counter in the court of public opinion.

    ESAD.

    I’m not sure at whom this is directed.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  148. What I and others don’t understand is why you wouldn’t acknowledge that the RCP transcript was wrong once it was pointed out. That’s all Patterico wants you to say.

    Yeah, I think he’s using the fact that the CNN transcript is not 100% accurate (see my comment; I had to add three words to make it accurate) to cover for the fact that the video doesn’t reflect what EPWJ said it did.

    My only question is whether he’s genuine (in which case he probably has a hard time in life based on this episode) or some kind of invented troll performance artist.

    I figure the former. He wouldn’t be the first person in the world who refuses to acknowledge reality staring him in the face if it hurts his pride to do so. But it’s a bad trait to have.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  149. DNF said he was talking about Boehner and the story in the post, not the EPWJ saga.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  150. He has an agenda. These aren’t completely random things that cause him concern.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  151. DNF is not a troll. All of his comments are directed at only the few who can decifer them. Usually, this means that one must be in a very particular frame of mind.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  152. Never mind, missed comment 144. No, DNF is not a troll or a sock puppet and he and I are on the same page re Boehner even if I would not express it in the same way.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  153. Patterico – this isn’t abnormal for him. It is normal. This is what he did with Palin. And the border guards. And Scozzfava. And Murkowski. And practically every topic he chimes in on.

    JD (c15cfc)

  154. What I mean by that last comment is that you can predict which topics will interest EPWJ. You can predict me, too, for that matter. Chief among them is that EPWJ really, really doesn’t like Ted Cruz.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  155. 148. Pee Wee is a party apparatchik of unknown provenance. He will go to his grave loyal and true to obsolete and utterly effete convention.

    Not even pitable.

    DNF (755a85)

  156. My friend and fellow Texan and Texas lawyer DRJ has done a magnificent job of correcting EPWJ regarding the role of the Texas Solicitor General’s office, its part in the Texas Attorney General’s office, and Ted Cruz’ performance as Texas Solicitor General in particular. And in the process, she’s also illustrated a facet of Cruz’ personal history that’s worth careful note by those trying to evaluate him as a conservative, a public servant, a GOP presidential candidate, and a champion of the Rule of Law. I’d add simply this:

    Historically, the Texas AG, like most states’ attorneys generals, has been both a legal and an administrative position. If you’re comparing the jobs held by AG Greg Abbott and SG Ted Cruz, there’s no doubt that Abbott’s job involved more executive responsibility — more management of a large number of employees (both lawyers and non-lawyer staff), more responsibility for procurement and budget, more involvement with legislative cooperation, etc. All of these things made AG Abbott an excellent choice to become the Governor of Texas, and I’m among his most enthusiastic supporters since I had the privilege of appearing before him when he was a state district judge back in Harris County many years ago.

    But the office of the Texas Solicitor General, like that of the Solicitor General of the United States, has a special responsibility to the Rule of Law — as compared to the day-to-day administration of an important state agency charged with implementing it. In terms of demonstrating his competency as an administrator, it’s fair to say that Cruz’ performance as Texas SG was a meaningful accomplishment. So too was his running the appellate law section of a well-respected national law firm. But what Cruz’ history as Texas’ SG persuades me of his his absolute intellectual fidelity to the constitutional principles that underlie the Rule of Law — principles that in my judgment are the foundation of our country. The solicitor general is sometimes described as the “high priest of legal doctrine, the keeper of legal dogma.” His job, quite specifically, is not to lose sight of the biggest of big-picture concepts and ideals, but rather to remain constantly focused upon them.

    Yes, Ted Cruz sharpened and improved the competence of the lawyers working in the SG’s office; yes, he recognized and recruited and hired better law school graduates and improved the talent pool; yes, he turned that office into one respected not just in Texas, but nationally by people who closely follow such things. Those are administrative, executive-type accomplishments.

    But look at his record, and his office’s record under his leadership, before the United States Courts of Appeals (mostly the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas) and, especially, before the United States Supreme Court. You’ll find a consistent showing of not just competency, not just success, but genuine legal brilliance — and all of it performed in the service of the people of the State of Texas and in the maintenance of the Rule of Law in its most highly distilled and consequential applications.

    Some people compare Cruz to Obama because they both ran for President after only a short stay in the Senate. Obama had no executive experience: He’d never run anything more complicated than his own political campaigns, and even those were actually run and managed, first, by the Chicago Machine Democratic politicians who controlled the Illinois legislature, and then by their national Democratic Party counterparts. Obama never held a real full-time job before he became president — the closest he can claim was before he even went to Harvard Law, during the few months when he was writing copy for a fairly obscure NYC trades publication. He never accomplished anything of note even in his part-time jobs (barely-there associate at a Chicago law firm whose income came from representing slum-lords like Tony Rezko, part-time instructor at Chicago Law School who had upper-class law students to write and grade his exams, part-time state legislator whose only legislative successes were drafted for him and handed to him, pre-digested and pre-massaged and ready for passage on party-line votes, by the Democratic Machine).

    Cruz can’t claim the depth of executive experience that the state governors who’re running can typically claim. So yes, in terms of the depth of this particular credential, the former or current governors who’re running — George Pataki, Jim Gilmore, John Kasich, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, and Scott Walker — can all claim to have objectively longer and arguably deeper histories.

    The relevant question, though, is whether one believes Cruz’ brilliance and fidelity to conservative principles under the Rule of Law is so compelling that it more than makes up for his comparative lack of executive experience. I think he’s making a very strong case that it does.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  157. Beldar, thank you for your terrific summary and defense of DRJ.

    I would add that Abraham Lincoln’s background was closer to Cruz’s than any of the other candidates we’re now considering. And Cruz’s handling of the Code Pink disruptors was right out of a 19th Century stump speech, or so I’d imagine. Like Abe, Cruz seems to be one of the people.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QCbpafD3Pw

    bobathome (279337)

  158. R.I.P. Al Arbour, NHL player, coach of the New York Islanders during their 4 consecutive Stanley Cup wins

    Icy (c32893)

  159. Great, great comment, Beldar. I suuport Cruz because of his demonstrated commitment to the Rule of Law and our founding principles. I’m going to save and link your comment for whenever I need to explain why I feel this way.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  160. yes, the Lincoln comparison occurred to me,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  161. #107: Patterico, the demand for Cruz’s autographed books must be growing rapidly. I just ordered copies for myself and my family, and they’re now going for $85, not $75. But it’s treated as a campaign contribution based on the information I had to supply, so that’s even better.

    bobathome (279337)

  162. 150.What I and others don’t understand is why you wouldn’t acknowledge that the RCP transcript was wrong once it was pointed out. That’s all Patterico wants you to say.

    Yeah, I think he’s using the fact that the CNN transcript is not 100% accurate (see my comment; I had to add three words to make it accurate) to cover for the fact that the video doesn’t reflect what EPWJ said it did.

    My only question is whether he’s genuine (in which case he probably has a hard time in life based on this episode) or some kind of invented troll performance artist.

    I figure the former. He wouldn’t be the first person in the world who refuses to acknowledge reality staring him in the face if it hurts his pride to do so. But it’s a bad trait to have.

    Then forget the transcripts, all he has to do is look at the video. It’s either pure stubbornness or part of a plan, as you suggest. I’m stubborn but I pray not to the extent I make myself look foolish like this. Maybe it is part of a plan but, if so, what?

    DRJ (1dff03)

  163. If it’s a plan to get himself effectively banned from Pat’s Ponts, it worked. If it’s a plan for anything else, it failed.

    John Hitchcock (0bc6d7)

  164. Maybe it is part of a plan but, if so, what?

    DRJ – maybe a plan, maybe he’s just bored and gets his kicks doing this.

    Perhaps he’s one of those people who believes that if you repeat a lie often enough, with enough stridency, some people will believe it and pass along the talking point with the citation that does not, in fact, support the talking point.

    Perhaps he’s looking for the “I am not a witch” denials – “Ted Cruz isn’t a liar,” said often enough, makes people wonder if he is a liar. (We actually learned about this in spokeswoman training: you’ll often be asked a question that is most directly answered in the negative – “I am not a witch,” “I don’t want the poor to starve,” etc., which makes you sound all negative.)

    bridget (d90803)

  165. That’s a good thought, bridget. I especially could see this happening from boredom or the like, but sometimes his arguments seem so counterproductive that it’s hard to understand why he persists in making them. Still, you’re absolutely right that it might cause some people to doubt, and maybe that’s the point. Or maybe the point is to make people like me wonder why he does what he does. I guess some people find entertainment in being different.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  166. Icy… the Grim Poster…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  167. Pat, love your site, but I come here for Beldar. 😉

    Steve Malynn (b5f891)

  168. I am sure there are a lot of lurkers, like me, who come here to read the thoughts and opinions of people who have impressed them with there thoughtful and well researched comments. Our host, DRJ, Beldar, Steve57, etc. all provide relevant and and well thought out discussion of things I find interesting. The thread jacking by people like EPWJ just detract from the high quality discussions I have come to expect and appreciate.

    Thank you all for contributing to my favorite political, current events forum.

    Easy Target (d7a02c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.9487 secs.