Prior to his convention speech, many speculated that Ted Cruz would use this platform to launch another run for the Presidency in 2020; even if Trump was President. But, once again, Cruz proved why he is so hated in Washington.
His speech was merely another campaign speech and had nothing to do with bringing the party together. As a result, he was booed and jeered and Trump had to enter the arena prematurely. Of course, by doing so, the cameras and attention focused on Trump and away from Cruz who was still speaking. Abruptly, Cruz's opportunity ended.
If he thought his performance would solidify support for another run in 2020, he was devastatingly mistaken. People will remember this for years. For many, both in the arena and those watching on TV, there will always be a negative opinion of him. He truly ruined what was a great night of speeches. On the following day, all the media talk was about Cruz and his appearance, and not about the other speakers. He should have just stayed home.
References:
Cruz gets booed after he declines to endorse Trump: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/cruz-gets-booed-after-he-declines-to-endorse-trump-during-convention-speech-225924
Ted Cruz stole the show, and then Donald Trump stole it right back: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/politics/republican-convention-2016-day-three-takeaways/
Ted's Selfish Gambit Backfires: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/20/ted-cruz-puts-his-political-career-ahead-his-count/
Ted Cruz Reopens Party Wounds on Dramatic RNC Convention Night: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-conventions/ted-cruz-reopens-party-wounds-dramatic-rnc-convention-night-n613826
Why Everyone (in Congress) Hates Ted Cruz -- NYMag: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/12/why-everyone-in-congress-hates-ted-cruz.html
In the three years since he arrived in the U.S. Senate, Ted Cruz has become easily the most hated man in Washington: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/why-dc-hates-ted-cruz/426915/
Everybody Hates Ted | New Republic: https://newrepublic.com/article/128808/everybody-hates-ted
Showing posts with label Republican. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican. Show all posts
Friday, July 22, 2016
Saturday, August 15, 2015
A 1988 Video Dispels the Belief That Trump is a Democrat
Quieter, less bombastic; "The Donald" talks up his Republican politics with Larry King on CNN:
Related Video: Donald Trump Teases a presidential bid During a 1988 Oprah Show | The Oprah Winfrey Show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI
Back then, it was "Japan". Fast forward to today, and he replaces it with "China".
Back then, it was "Japan". Fast forward to today, and he replaces it with "China".
Monday, June 22, 2015
Pope Francis' Catholic Problem On Global Warming
Some people refer to Catholics as a flock shepherded by its Pope. But, when it comes to Pope Francis' stand on global warming, the flock may need some extra herding to come around.
Just a day before the Pope released his encyclical on climate change and global warming, Pew Research released the results of a poll asking Democrat, Republican, and Independent Catholics about their stands on the issue.
When asked if the earth is getting warmer, 71% of all Catholics said "yes". This is higher than the general population where only 68% believe that warming exists, but below that 71%, the breakdown between political affiliations of Catholics tells a varied story. The primary reason that the number of Catholics believing in the earth's warming is higher then the general public is because 85% of Catholic Democrats say it's so. On the other hand, only 51% of Catholic Republicans believe it to be the case. 72% of Independents sided more closely with the Democrats by saying 'yes' on warming.
Where Catholics really go off the rails against the Pope is on the question as to whether global warming is man-made and whether its a serious problem.
As far as whether global warming is man-made, 62% of Democrats, 48% of Independents, and 24% of Republicans agree. Overall, only 47% of Catholics believe the warming of the earth is due to man's activities. At the same time, considering it to be a serious problems had almost identical results. Again, it was the Democrats that showed the most concern (64%).
These numbers wouldn't be so bad if most Catholics were Democrats, but, here too, the Pope loses. As this chart from Pew shows, white Catholic political affiliations have become increasingly more Republican while, I assume, Blacks and Hispanics have remained more solidly Democrats:
The bottom line is that Catholics as a whole aren't buying the whole global warming thing because, like the general population, the climate change alarmists have over predicted the impending disasters, and the Pope's encyclical is just more of the same. Because of this, I don't think its going to move the needle very much as far as how many Catholics are embracing climate change.
References:
PewResearch: Catholics Divided Over Global Warming: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/16/catholics-divided-over-global-warming/
PewResearch: Politics by Religious Affiliation: http://www.pewforum.org/2012/02/02/trends-in-party-identification-of-religious-groups-affiliation/
Pope Francis, in Sweeping Encyclical, Calls for Swift Action on Climate Change: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/world/europe/pope-francis-in-sweeping-encyclical-calls-for-swift-action-on-climate-change.html
Just a day before the Pope released his encyclical on climate change and global warming, Pew Research released the results of a poll asking Democrat, Republican, and Independent Catholics about their stands on the issue.
When asked if the earth is getting warmer, 71% of all Catholics said "yes". This is higher than the general population where only 68% believe that warming exists, but below that 71%, the breakdown between political affiliations of Catholics tells a varied story. The primary reason that the number of Catholics believing in the earth's warming is higher then the general public is because 85% of Catholic Democrats say it's so. On the other hand, only 51% of Catholic Republicans believe it to be the case. 72% of Independents sided more closely with the Democrats by saying 'yes' on warming.
Where Catholics really go off the rails against the Pope is on the question as to whether global warming is man-made and whether its a serious problem.
As far as whether global warming is man-made, 62% of Democrats, 48% of Independents, and 24% of Republicans agree. Overall, only 47% of Catholics believe the warming of the earth is due to man's activities. At the same time, considering it to be a serious problems had almost identical results. Again, it was the Democrats that showed the most concern (64%).
These numbers wouldn't be so bad if most Catholics were Democrats, but, here too, the Pope loses. As this chart from Pew shows, white Catholic political affiliations have become increasingly more Republican while, I assume, Blacks and Hispanics have remained more solidly Democrats:
The bottom line is that Catholics as a whole aren't buying the whole global warming thing because, like the general population, the climate change alarmists have over predicted the impending disasters, and the Pope's encyclical is just more of the same. Because of this, I don't think its going to move the needle very much as far as how many Catholics are embracing climate change.
References:
PewResearch: Catholics Divided Over Global Warming: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/16/catholics-divided-over-global-warming/
PewResearch: Politics by Religious Affiliation: http://www.pewforum.org/2012/02/02/trends-in-party-identification-of-religious-groups-affiliation/
Pope Francis, in Sweeping Encyclical, Calls for Swift Action on Climate Change: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/world/europe/pope-francis-in-sweeping-encyclical-calls-for-swift-action-on-climate-change.html
Friday, October 24, 2014
A Republican Senate Will Put Congress At War With Obama
Since taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama has only had to use his veto power twice. The reasons for this are quite simple.
In his first two years in office, he had a fully Democrat-controlled Congress. So, only "friendly" Senate and House bills were sent to the President for his signature. Thus, they never put the President in the politically awkward position of having to veto a bill. Then, since 2010, when the House of Representatives went to Republican control, Harry Reid managed to shield the Obama from using his veto power by simply sitting on more than 350 bills that the Republican House had sent over to the Democrat Senate. Some are being tied up in Democrat-led committees; while the rest are just withering away because Harry Reid won't bring them to the floor for a vote.
If the Senate turns Republican, Reid will lose his majority leadership and all the Senate committees will become controlled by Republicans. As a result, many of those idled bills will start being passed and sent to the President for his signature. Now, most of those bills are not going to be to Obama's political and ideological liking. Especially the ones that would kill or delay ObamaCare. So, expect a flurry of vetoes that have never been seen in this country before. Then Obama will be seen as the obstructionist. Not Congress.
But, another interesting thing might happen with the vetoing of so many bills. The President's approval rating may drop significantly. That drop may force some Democrat Senators who are up for, and at risk of losing reelection in 2016, to distance themselves from him by joining the Republicans in overriding those vetoes. Of course, that will force Obama to use even more executive orders in order to counter any those bills where his veto was overridden.
Lastly, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid successfully implemented the so-called nuclear option in the Senate, he literally blew up the minority party's ability to use a filibuster to block the passage of certain bills and, the requirement of a minimum of 60 yea votes to approve the President's nominees to the judicial bench or to any positions in his Administration. As a consequence, the Senate Republicans lost the ability to do anything to block bills or block presidential nominees. Many seem to think that, if the Senate goes Republican, the majority leader will reverse the nuclear option. I don't think so. By once again, requiring a 60-vote override of the filibuster, many of those 350 bills in the Senate won't reach cloture and won't even be sent to the Senate floor for a vote because they will just remain tied up in a filibuster by the Democrats. Thus, if the Senate does go to the Republicans, the minority party Democrats will deservedly find themselves hoisted up on their own petard because they foolishly and selfishly implemented the nuclear option.
Ah yes. the President's last two years in office could be quite interesting as both he and Congress battle it out in what could only be envisioned as an all out war.
References:
Veto Counts by President: http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm
Stack of 350 Bills Stuck in the Senate: http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/grow-economy/stack-350-bills-stuck-senate-006985
In his first two years in office, he had a fully Democrat-controlled Congress. So, only "friendly" Senate and House bills were sent to the President for his signature. Thus, they never put the President in the politically awkward position of having to veto a bill. Then, since 2010, when the House of Representatives went to Republican control, Harry Reid managed to shield the Obama from using his veto power by simply sitting on more than 350 bills that the Republican House had sent over to the Democrat Senate. Some are being tied up in Democrat-led committees; while the rest are just withering away because Harry Reid won't bring them to the floor for a vote.
If the Senate turns Republican, Reid will lose his majority leadership and all the Senate committees will become controlled by Republicans. As a result, many of those idled bills will start being passed and sent to the President for his signature. Now, most of those bills are not going to be to Obama's political and ideological liking. Especially the ones that would kill or delay ObamaCare. So, expect a flurry of vetoes that have never been seen in this country before. Then Obama will be seen as the obstructionist. Not Congress.
But, another interesting thing might happen with the vetoing of so many bills. The President's approval rating may drop significantly. That drop may force some Democrat Senators who are up for, and at risk of losing reelection in 2016, to distance themselves from him by joining the Republicans in overriding those vetoes. Of course, that will force Obama to use even more executive orders in order to counter any those bills where his veto was overridden.
Lastly, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid successfully implemented the so-called nuclear option in the Senate, he literally blew up the minority party's ability to use a filibuster to block the passage of certain bills and, the requirement of a minimum of 60 yea votes to approve the President's nominees to the judicial bench or to any positions in his Administration. As a consequence, the Senate Republicans lost the ability to do anything to block bills or block presidential nominees. Many seem to think that, if the Senate goes Republican, the majority leader will reverse the nuclear option. I don't think so. By once again, requiring a 60-vote override of the filibuster, many of those 350 bills in the Senate won't reach cloture and won't even be sent to the Senate floor for a vote because they will just remain tied up in a filibuster by the Democrats. Thus, if the Senate does go to the Republicans, the minority party Democrats will deservedly find themselves hoisted up on their own petard because they foolishly and selfishly implemented the nuclear option.
Ah yes. the President's last two years in office could be quite interesting as both he and Congress battle it out in what could only be envisioned as an all out war.
References:
Veto Counts by President: http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm
Stack of 350 Bills Stuck in the Senate: http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/grow-economy/stack-350-bills-stuck-senate-006985
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Jindal's Flop
Last night's Republican response to President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress was just pathetic. It was given by the current Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal; a guy who has always been classed as one of the hot, up-and-comers in the Republican party. The sound was terrible. The setting was cold. Governor Jindal stood in front of camera with a slight slump and his head cocked sideways as if he was Mother Teresa looking for a charitable donation. His speech was less than forceful. He almost whispered as if he was announcing a golf tournament. The Jerry Seinfeld episode about the "low talker" came to mind. Finally, his use of jokes and personal experiences fell completely flat; seeming amateurish, at best.Overall, that speech gave America no reason to believe that the Republicans are holding the answers to get us out of this recession. It would have been better if it had never occurred. Certainly, a dynamic speaker, like Barack Obama, would have been a hard act to follow anyway; but, there surely were better performers available in the Republican party to counter this first outing in front of all of Congress by Obama. Michael Steele, the new RNC Chairman, would have been a great choice. So would have most of those who had run for the Presidency; like Mitt Romney, or even John McCain.
History has shown us that the first, nationally-televised public appearance of any politician is a "maker" or a "breaker" in their chances for top leadership in this country. Certainly, we now have a President who elevated his chances for that when he gave the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Sarah Palin hiked the price of her own stock when she spoke at this last Republican Convention for her first in a nationally televised appearance. George Bush once gave a Republican response to a Clinton Address; and, while not that remarkable, he didn't hurt himself, either.
I think Jindal hurt himself. Up until last night's speech, I thought highly of him. I had previously seen him being interviewed on a variety of topics and I liked his responses. However, last night proved that he doesn't have the guns to go out onto the national stage. Many in the Republican party thought that he should have been McCain's pick for V.P. Looking at last night's performance, I think McCain made the right choice in "not" picking Bobby Jindal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
