Senator Cruz's HONORABLE response to Dianne's whining. Gotta love this man!

[Pilgrim]

My wife got a LOT of verbal abuse from her family when she told them we were contemplating voting for Cruz. It got so bad at one point that I decided to put them all on the spot one night during a get-together dinner. In a nutshell, they shut the hell up after I read them the riot act.. then we proceeded to vote for the guy.

One of my wife's family members told us just recently that, although he doesn't always agree with what Cruz is doing, he can't help but admire the conviction of his beliefs. He even went so far as to say if the Republican Party fielded more candidates like Cruz then the Democrats would be in for the fight of their lives.

Not a bad acknowledgement coming from a dyed-in-the-wool liberal...

 

[TheDan]

There was a shitstorm of David Dewhurst ads blasting Cruz for being one of the insiders, one of the business as usual types and trashing him for his heritage and intention to be another one of the turds in Washington.

We need to remember that in the next primaries... Dewhurst needs to go.

 

[Grapenut]

The jury is still out on Mr. Cruz simply because of what Mordor ( about 70 miles east of me ) does to people. I admire his convictions and at this point they are admirable. If he is STILL doing in two years what he is doing now then I will respect him as a man of principle and virtue. This place will test them both, thoroughly.

Nut

 

[benenglish]

OK, yay for Cruz. I loved conversation with Feinstein. He shut her down quite well.

However, and I really hate to be the wet blanket here, he was able to do so because Feinstein was neither smart enough or prepared enough to answer the question. When Cruz boiled it down to "Would it be OK under the 1st to compile lists of books that are OK and those that are banned?", well, if Feinstein had been a better debater she could have obliterated him.

The answer to that question is "Of course there are lists of books that are OK and those that are prohibited". Anybody who thinks about it can come up with plenty of examples. Books adjudicated obscene are banned. By federal regulation, books on national security procedures are banned from reading by the general public. Every federal law enforcement agency has LEMs (Law Enforcement Manuals) that spell out things like just how big a crime must be before a case can be opened and it is illegal for the public to read them. For various special populations, there are many banned books; try being a teenager today and getting caught with a copy of "The Anarchist Cookbook" in your school locker. We tolerate de facto bans all the time; when that guy a few years ago tried to publish a manual on how to molest children, he was arrested and the book was, in practice, banned before it ever got to court.

They are spread out all over the law and all over various case decisions, but if Feinstein had had her wits about her she could have easily answered Cruz in the affirmative, given examples, and made him look like an idiot. Her own hubris (which caused her to be unable to reply reasonably because she just couldn't wrap her head around the notion that she'd get some hard questions) was her undoing, not the questions asked (in the way they were asked) by Cruz.

Cruz did good...but he also got really, really, really lucky.

 

[HKaltwasser]

Time for the old guard to go. See ya Mc Cain and Grahamnesty.......Hello Cruz and Paul.

 

[Fight Crime : Shoot Back]

Enjoyable thank you for the post.