Ted?
A few months ago - whether for spite or for fun - someone put me on Ted Cruz's email list. Late last night I received an appeal from Ted seeking a donation:
"Because you have been one of my most loyal supporters -- I'm reaching out to you first."
Sure, Ted, the check is in the mail.
 |
| ??? |
Three years ago I wrote a piece called "President Cruz?". At the time it was obvious to me (as I'm sure it was as obvious to anyone paying attention) that, even though he had come to Washington only a few months before, the celebrated gas bag from the Lone Star State would be making his bid for the 2016 Republican nomination. So help me Mitch Miller, I never dreamed that the silly bastard would win a single primary. At the time, I neglected to take to account the rip-roaring stupidity of the GOP voters in Iowa. - which brings me to the question that is screaming to be posed:
"Why Iowa?''
Why is this state so crucial to the primary season? With respect to the Republicans, they have not once in their history picked someone who went on to win the nomination - forget about the White House. A state that houses more white people than any other place in a nation that is becoming more-and-more brown by the minute has lost its relevance - assuming it ever had any. The people who decide these things ought to reconsider that states' significance to the electoral process. Just a thought.
Which brings be back to Teddy Boy: I'm not at all alarmed at the prospect of a Cruz candidacy - amused, yes, but hardy alarmed. In fact, I hope he gets the nomination this summer. There is nothing in the realm of the most twisted possibility that I can foresee that would be as delightfully weird as Ted Cruz playing the part of the right wing's standard bearer for 2016. The guy is so extreme and vulgar that, for people like me who thrive on this stuff, a Cruz run would be a demented dream come to life. Oh, please, fate....
Here is something that is the worst kept secret in Washington: His colleagues in the senate can't stand him. Think about that just for a second. A party that has lowered the bar so far in recent years as to what constitutes "statesman-like behavior" finds Ted too insufferably obnoxious for comfort. That takes some doing. When a right wing politician becomes too extreme for the GOP even, it's time to prescribe some lithium. Seriously.
I don't suspect that Ted is going to be taking the oath of office on January 20, 2017; then again, early in the candidacy of George W. Bush, I never dreamed that one day he would be living in the Executive Mansion. Shit happens, you know?
Should that unthinkable scenario ever come to pass, I'll learn to live with it. As bad as a Cruz administration would be for the country and the world, at least it would never be boring. We must seek these silver linings behind the darkest of clouds.
I don't suspect that Ted is going to be taking the oath of office on January 20, 2017; then again, early in the candidacy of George W. Bush, I never dreamed that one day he would be living in the Executive Mansion. Shit happens, you know?
Should that unthinkable scenario ever come to pass, I'll learn to live with it. As bad as a Cruz administration would be for the country and the world, at least it would never be boring. We must seek these silver linings behind the darkest of clouds.
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
SUGGESTED READING:
The Last 100 Days
by John Toland
This chronicle of the winter and spring of 1945 is a page-turner. It's always oodles of fun to read about the personal, political and psychological implosion of Adolf Hitler! Although written in 1966, the book is still in print and can be ordered off Amazon.com:
posted by Tom Degan @ 1:13 PM
65 comments
65 Comments:
Mr. Degan, I understand that you are a New York progressive and that is absolutely your right. That said, I have come to expect better from you than this meme and post. With all due respect, it sounds like something written by an exaggerating and dissembling Democrat propagandist. I had to make sure that this wasn’t a guest post written by our friend, Mr. Mozart.
Please provide objective evidence of Senator Cruz being an immigrant-hating white supremacist. It would be hilarious if he was considering his Latino Cuban ancestry. Like the few common-sense conservative Americans that are left these days, Cruz doesn’t hate immigrants of any color. He realizes that our current immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed desperately. In the process, we need to ensure that those people entering our nation illegally are stopped. It doesn’t matter if they are Swedes coming in from the Canadian border or Aryan Persians from Iran coming in through Mexico. Further, those that do enter illegally, especially those bent on nefarious designs, should be detained, prosecuted, imprisoned, and then deported.
Last, the reason why Mitch McConnell and the rest of the cowardly Republicans in the senate don’t like Ted Cruz is because he is there to call not only the Democrats on their lawless and unconstitutional behavior, but to also point it out on the GOP side. It is the fact that he calls a spade, a spade regardless of whether the person has a “D”, “R”, or like our socialist candidate Sanders, an “I” after their name that makes him unpopular. He didn’t go to Washington to get along with the boys and gals in the Senate clique. He went to represent the state of Texas and his constituents by following the Constitution.
I guess by doing that very thing in these days and times does indeed make him an “extremist” though. Our founding fathers must be rolling in their graves at what we have become as a nation. And in typical Saul Alinsky fashion, the progressives will lie incessantly and spew propaganda in the attempt to discredit one of the few candidates that actually wants to stand by the rule of law and our Constitution. It is utterly amazing. I long ago got used to that with most progressives. I am frankly surprised that you would stoop to that level without any supporting evidence whatsoever though, Mr. Degan. Sadly you are starting to sound like some of the extremists on the left posting in your comments section. Like I said, I had come to expect better, sir.
The question the Democrat, progressive, socialist, liberals should be asking is, who do we have that can beat any of the current top 3 GOP candidates?
Honestly Tom, it's you blog, you can do as you like, and I greatly appreciate you allowing others to do the same. But in the last six months you have slammed, JEB, Trump and now Cruz. Considering that most of your readers aren't going to vote Republican, ever, whose mind are you trying to change?
"The world is on fire. Yes! Your world is on fire." -Ted Cruz, to a three-year-old girl
Maybe this kind of thoughtless fear-mongering to a child is one reason most people don't like the self-righteous man with all the answers.
Cruz is just another authoritarian non-compromising ideologue, in his own party yet.
Do his fans know he and Hillary both owe their positions to Cruz's wife's employer, Goldman Sachs? They both feed at the same trough.
Something tells me GS would be his interpreter of the Constitution and write the laws he would pass. Anyone thinking this intolerant ideologue of a man isn't as corruptible as others is delusional.
It does not pay to put too much faith in politics these days, remember poly means many and well you know what tics are. Steven King and Cruz conspired against Carson with fraudulent mailings, emails and tweets saying that Carson dropped out of the race which probably gave the win to Cruz under dubious circumstances. In politics if you wait long enough you will almost always be disappointed.
What was the role of CNN in the Carlson dropping out story?
Is it true that 6 out of 6 coin toss all came out for Mrs. Clinton?
Obama beat the "shoe in" Clinton for the same reason Sanders might, and the same reason Cruz could win the Republican nomination.
Be careful what you wish for.
I wonder if the Republican majority would obstruct a president Cruz?
Lots of laughs with the Democratic Iowa caucus clown show!
The liberals like to say the GOP is a party of old white guys. What's that old socialist blowhard from Vermont, who promises Utopia with all the free goodies to the gullible little people?
And what about that coin toss? No doubt Slick Willie Clinton supplied the coin "Heads Clinton wins, Tails Sanders loses"!
Interesting blog about the Declining Military Welfare State:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/02/the-declining-military-welfare-state
Chuckles, we don't have to ask, we have a NUMBER of people who could beat ANY GOP candidate in a FAIR national election. We realize that the GOP does not represent the vast majority of Americans. BTW, for what it's worth, MANY Iowans think the caucus is stupid. In fact, MOST of us would GLADLY give up being the first state to choose. YOU suffer through 24/ political ads from lying conservatives for 18 months before every election.
And Smokey, (Boy troll) Pick a name and stick with it.
FAIR, that means where your voters can vote twice and non citizens can also vote
Laughable!
Chuck, do you have any links or proof to share of anyone being caught voting twice, or a non-citizen voting?
Also, thanks for bringing back Smokey; I enjoyed his campaign against net neutrality.
Prove it hasn't happened
President Bush fired 9 U.S. Attorneys because they were ordered to find evidence of massive voter fraud, by Liberals of course, and they never did. And they refused to make up cases out of thin air. Remember that?
Chuck Morre: "Prove it hasn't happened".
You're asking Anonymous to prove a "non-event", or a "non-existence". It's similar to having to prove in a court of law that you're not the murderer, or you're not the rapist, or you're not the public official guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
The burden of proof always falls on the one making the allegation -- not the one being accused of the offense.
So, Mr. Morre, since you made the allegation, provide your proof. (Oh, and opinions are not sufficient evidence in a court of law, either.)
President Bush fired 9 U.S. Attorneys because they were ordered to find evidence of massive voter fraud, by Liberals of course, and they never did. And they refused to make up cases out of thin air. Remember that?
I remember that. It is proof of a Republican campaign of voter suppression by exaggerated claims of widespread voter impersonation fraud. Rove demanded they be fired for not goose-stepping enough in their war on voter rights.
They lied. They still lie. They always will lie. They are at war with democracy and the first casualty is truth.
Look no further than Smokey Chuck for accusations, distraction, deflection, and deception.
Conservatives don't need any further proof voter fraud exists. The fact that they don't win every election is all the proof they require.
Chuckie, there is no evience whatsoever of "individual" voter fruad. But there WAS the 2000 and 2004 presidential "elections", where the GOP stole them from the candidtaes the voters chose.
My friend caught his wife cheating. You know how?
She stared accusing HIM of it. You know,like suddenly conservatives are up in arms about "voter fraud" right after THEY steal two elections.
Jg
Mozart claims GOP can't win an election if it is a fair election.
The burden of proof is on him to back that claim
De-Bill do you realize how inane your post is?
Mozart
You are "not the sharpest pencil in the box, you are wrong".
Experts Agree That Voter Impersonation is "Virtually Non-Existent." The New Yorker reported that experts agree that actual incidents of in-person voter fraud -- the type of voter fraud that strict voter ID laws can prevent -- are "virtually non-existent," and fears of voter fraud have been largely invented as a way to "excite the base."
Brennan Center For Justice: Allegations Of Widespread Voter Fraud "Simply Do Not Pan Out." The New York University School of Law's Brennan Center has repeatedly explained that in-person voter fraud is not a justification for strict voter ID laws, because voter impersonation is "more rare than getting struck by lightning," and allegations of widespread fraud typically "amount to a great deal of smoke without much fire" and "simply do not pan out."
Loyola University Professor: Only 31 Out Of 1 Billion Ballots Subject To In-Person Voter Fraud. Loyola University Law School professor Justin Levitt, who investigated "any specific, credible allegation" of voter impersonation fraud, found a total of "about 31 different incidents" since 2000 of in-person voter fraud out of over 1 billion ballots cast.
Chuckles, the GOP had to cheat to get Dubya in office in 2000 and 2004. Gerrymandering proves they KNOW they can't wing the House without cheating, and now thoey want to disenfranchise as many poor or minority (read Democrat) voters as possible?
Prove it? It's obvious!
And keep using the "sharpest pencil" comment. It proves you cannot think for yourself, though that too, is obvious.
GO BRONCOS!!!
I would bet dollars to donuts that chuck is a Backpfeifengeischt! LOL
Google voter fraud.
Mozart how can you tell me to start thinking for myself when none of your anti conservative comments are original with you?
What do the liberal progressive socialist Democrats think about Bill Clinton' s statement that Sander's plans will not work because there isn't enough $ to pay for them?
Is that true or is Bill lying?
Ask the "experts" what the odds are that Mrs Clinton could win 6 coin toss in a row.
Ask them how in one IA caucus there was just one voter, who voted for Bernie and yet the precinct their were from was reported to go Clinton?
Gerrymandering? How do you explain the democrat senate seat losses?
Their Govenor losses!
Mozart you are simply wrong!
Let's dispel with this fiction that Chuck Morre doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing.
"Google voter fraud." Chuck replies.
The perfect comeback. I love your logic, ChuckSoreLoser™. Your logic is again impeccable.
While you're at it, google "aliens visited in UFOs, CIA covered it up"
Fears of voter fraud have been largely invented as a way to "excite the base." And ChuckSoreLoser™ is the base, and he is excited. Excited enough to troll Tom Degan's blog with bullshit.
"De-Bill do you realize how inane your post is?"
Then why don't you provide some evidence? That shouldn't be that hard. Not one or two cases in an election with a million votes, I mean enough cases among a million votes to actually change ANY election by even 1/10th of 1%. Since you're so positive it exists actual proof should be easy to find, right? Right?
The fact is, you rely on truthiness. "I don't care what the facts say, I feel this is true, so that's all the evidence I need."
And I'M "inane"?
Here's a movie quote for you, sparky: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
De-Bill. DD
What do either of your posts have to do with voter fraud?
Or fair elections
What unnamed "experts say" is acceptable, but named sources found on Google are not.
Remember when liberals used to brag how great our economy was under Clinton when he raised taxes? Now their hero is slamming Bernie's Econ policy's as unaffordable.
Isn't it interesting that a party that claims it's so in touch so diverse both having fresh new ideas has just 2 in it's primary candidates and they are both are white and over 70 years old and have been in power for decades
While the other party is so diverse is has whites women Latinos a black man and candidates who have never been elected to an office and they are called the party of rich old white men
What was that about feeling it's the truth don't bother me with facts again?
Now Chuckie believes Willie, when he's campaigning for his wife.
"I don't care what the facts say, I feel this is true, so that's all the evidence I need."
Funny how Chuckie recalls Clinton leaving a good economy, while ignoring the tax-cutting, deregulation failure, and endless war that Bush left us.
"I don't care what the facts say, I feel this is true, so that's all the evidence I need."
Yup.
Since when did Republicans NOT work for the rich old white men's agenda over that of 99% of Americans?
"I don't care what the facts say, I feel this is true, so that's all the evidence I need."
Evidently.
Shorter Chuck:
"Who ya gonna believe, unnamed "experts" or teh google?
I guess, anonymous 2:35 PM, you won't be voting? Since all politicians lie?
Maybe it's better if you stay home on election day.
Wouldn't want to strain that enormous brain of yours.
Dave,
You are simply beyond any credibility.
Was Bill campaigning when he said I did not have sex with that woman? Should I have believed him them?
Did you believe him then but not know?
Why is that Dave?
Do you believe what Mozart posts?
Do you believe what Bernie is saying?
Dave,
You are simply beyond any credibility.
Thanks for the projection.
How about some more of your:
"I don't care what the facts say, I feel this is true, so that's all the evidence I need."
"I don't care what the facts say, I feel this is true, so that's all the evidence I need."
Are you putting words into my mouth again Dave or are you quoting Mozart or Hansen?
Do you really believe by putting something in quotes without giving the name of who u are quoting gives your statement creditablity?
Sad state of afairs for the liberal socialist progressive Democrat theses days, look at who they have to throw under the bus in order to support Bernie, Bill Clinton.
Let's dispel with this fiction that Chuck Morre doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing.
Let's dispel with this fiction that Chuck Morre doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing.
Your use of project DD is coming back to haunt you. It is you that projects.
Sadly you are not even aware of doing do.
You question if I should believe Bill because it's campaign talk yet you believe what any GOP canadate says
Now who is it you are referring to with your quote about facts and feelings?
Projection much?
You question if I should believe Bill because it's campaign talk yet you believe what any GOP canadate (sic) says
We shouldn't believe anything any GOP candidate says.
Ted Cruz, for example, is a proven liar.
Is Sander's telling the truth when he says that under obamacare you are not saving as much as Obama said you would?
Lets face it people,
Bernie and Hillary are both really old goats.
Is this the best we got?
Hillary lies like a rug, and Bernie talks like he's the leader of the Bolshevik party in 1917 Russia.
PUD
Careful there old friend, you don't want Dave to think you are calling Bernie supporters Commies.
Chuck, you are not posting enough, we need to hear more of your wisdom. Please buckle down and post more often, much more often!
Is Bill telling the truth when he said
"sometimes I wish I wasn't married to Hillary" ?
Chuck Morre: "Mozart claims GOP can't win an election if it is a fair election. The burden of proof is on him to back that claim".
No, actually he didn't say what you claim. If, in fact, you were replying to Mozart, as you said, than what Mozart wrote is as follows:
"...we have a NUMBER of people who could beat ANY GOP candidate in a FAIR national election."
The key word is "could". (Apparently you chose to overlook this.) Mozart wasn't expressing a fact; only an opinion. However, you were expressing an opinion and claiming it was a fact. Therefore, I still contend you were replying to Anonymous, who asked: "Chuck, do you have any links or proof to share of anyone being caught voting twice, or a non-citizen voting?"
My statement still stands. The burden of proof falls on you. As you've already been asked by Anonymous, please provide proof of your earlier statement. If you can't, please retract your claim.
JG
I've addressed this already and restated my post. I will not and do not respond to an anonymous posts any more than you would.
JG
When I in error have posted as anonymous, I have followed up with a new post admitting same, in order to prevent the crazy ambush tactic of those who play gotcha debate
I've addressed this already and restated my post. I will not and do not respond to an anonymous posts any more than you would.
"Except when I use multiple aliases to agree with and congratulate myself." (SoreLoserChuckMorreHarrySharptoonSharpestKnifeEtc.)
Shorter Morre logic: "Hillary's old! Her husband cheated! Bernie's a soshulist! Voter fraud - just google it!"
I respectfully request more Smokey. He's my favorite of your aliases.
Chuckie blames anon comments on other people he likes to attack, even though he has been told that comment came from someone else. At least Chuckie is sitting in his parents basement sending hate through a computer, not out killing people.
JG
Do you see why?
Simple solution if someone wants to have a dialogue with me is to have a name
Dose the NYT publish letters from a unnamed writer?
Of course not.
I'm sure you know why that is.
So why should my standards be any lower than the NYT?
Chuck, you have quite a few names.
The thing is, if you're going to use multiple aliases, be careful not to humblebrag about your six-hour volunteer shifts as "Chuck Moore" and SoreLoser. If you're going to troll Tom's site with multiple names, you have be alert, and not give yourself away.
Just the Sore Smokey Chuck also posted and deleted a comment switching from Just the Facts to Chuck Morre back in December:
Just the Facts:
" if you gave a shit about the kids AFTER they were born and BEFORE they were eligable for the military.".
Well Mozart I DO give a shit, I am a state licensed foster parent working through Bethany Christian Services. I foster parent: ie care for new borne whose mothers chose not to murdered them, ...
Magically transformed a minute later into:
Chucke Morre:
" if you gave a shit about the kids AFTER they were born and BEFORE they were eligable for the military.".
Well Mozart I DO give a shit, I am a state licensed foster parent working through Bethany Christian Services. I foster parent: ie care for new borne whose mothers chose not to murdered them, ...
Better blame liberals for making con-servatives have to lie all the time, amirite?
Actually I DID say that the GOP CANNOT WIN A FAIR election.
You can tell by the 2000 and 2004 "selections" and the fact that the GOP has to Gerrymander house districts and disenfranchise as many poor and/or minority voters as possible since they tend to vote Democrat.
It's not only TRUE that they cannot win at the National level, their actions show that THEY KNOW they can't. They certainly don't represent the vast majority of Americans, even if some "uncomplicated" people believe they do.
WHAT HAS THE GOP DONE FOR THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASSES THE LAST 40 YEARS?
So far, no conservatives has the balls to answer that one honestly.
Mrs. (2nd place in New Hampshire and winner by a coin toss in Iowa) Clinton was given 8.5 million dollars for her memoir was the same person who while under oath told investigators she couldn't recall or forgot.
Now in the real world one would think this might be more important than a name I may have used, but this is the liberal progressive socialist Democrat world and reality is limited at best
Mozart
You tell me one policy Democrats have put into place in the last 40 years that was so successful it was retired.
Oh and what's your definition of honestly?
Chucky, my definition of "honestly" is the same as anyone elses other than a conservative. It means TELL THE TRUTH. I can see why that would throw you.
And what policy would be "retired" if it were successful? Only a conservative would think that way.
Now answer the question.
"
Now in the real world one would think this might be more important than a name I may have used, but this is the liberal progressive socialist Democrat world and reality is limited at best."
Says the commenter who posts under a variety of aliases to agree with himself. Tell us more about reality, we'd love to hear your thoughts on it.
Wait a minute Mozart, you may not realize it but you just stumbled on the difference between you a liberal and me a conservative.
To wit, you said only a conservative would expect a govt program to solve a problem and therefore be no longer needed.
A liberal can't believe that people after getting the help from the program would improve their lives to where it is no longer needed.
A conservative believes that one the help is given the recipient should move on with any further help to deal with that problem
In others words to become self sufficient
Conservatism believes in the ability of humans to improve and grow so they no longer need the program, liberals believe that humans are helpless with govt programs.
Now Mozart, tell the truth, isn't this what you believe?
I wish DD would stop posting under Anonymous, don't you?
I wish DD would stop posting under Anonymous,
Thanks for the projection.
After the most ridiculously short sighted narrow minded hypocritical pronouncement of "beliefs" from the person who also believes in "truthiness" over fact:
"I don't care what the facts say, I feel this is true, so that's all the evidence I need."
Not his quote, but perfectly encapsulating the creed of American Con-servatism.
More proof besides massive voter impersonation fraud, liberals are commies/nazis, Obama the Marxist Kenyan, death panels, "nukular" aluminum tubes, Benghazi! (TM), Saddam in cahoots with al-Qaeda, liberal corporate media, Liberals are to blame for everything bad, and the most diabolical global conspiracy of evil climate scientists.
Yup. Facts be damned. Truthiness of beliefs is all that counts. Very convenient for fascism and far Right co-servatism.
Very bad for Americans and other living breathing life forms.
"Now in the real world one would think this might be more important than a name I may have used..."
Thank you ChuckSoreLoser for finally admitting that you're a fraud.
Say DD just because you keep saying it does not mean it's true
Who are you quoting, President Obama?
Thanks for finally being honest and admitting that quote is not mine.
Projection much?
Now after that breath of fresh air do you think you can tell us who you are quoting?
Didn't think so
Chuck Morre
Why do you feel compelled to comment under so many fake names?
Aint it the truth that if Hitler won the Democratic Nomination, all the kool aid drinking progressives would vote for him?
amirite?
iokiyaNAZI (... your a national socialist german workers party) lol lol!
Big LOL!
Not only does Just the Smokey Sore Chuck immediately lose an argument by "Godwin's Law", he illustrates again the creed of American Con-servatism, "I don't care what the facts say, I feel this is true, so that's all the evidence I need".
Amirite?
LOL!!!!
Anonymous 11:03 AM
Here's your original comment:
Since all politicians lie especially during a campaign, it's ridiculous to quote them and try to make a logical argument. So have your fun, but you only prove what idiots you are.
So please enlighten us. What should we do? Stay home on election day? They all lie, so what's the point of voting, right? Please make it simple for us, since you've called us all idiots.
Help us! We need your huge brain!
Sorry we're such idiots. Only a superior creature like yourself would bother to come here and call the rest of us idiots. You must be so charming in real life. I'm sure you're very popular.
One Saul Alinsky radical (see HRCs Wellesley thesis) is beaten by a Saul Alinsky community organizer.
Now the Saul Alinsky radical is being threatened by a Saul Alinsky prototype!
Hail Saul Alinsky and marxism!
Smokey! How is your crusade against Net Neutrality going? Fighting the good fight?
You're my favorite of all the aliases.
Anonymous @5:42,
lol on the "crusade against Net Neutrality". Smoking some good dope again and dreaming that Air America and Rush are tied in the ratings for social justice's sake?
Smokey Lagumski ... My favorite Sore Loser alias... some real creative writing there.
Say hi to Sore Loser and Chuck during your next 6:00-12:00 USO shift!
Post a Comment
<< Home