Cruz, Dewhurst Trade Punches

I think it’s safe to say that Ted Cruz now has David Dewhurst’s attention.

First came the Chupacabra ad, then news of the National Review cover. Then yesterday, the Cruz campaign noted that Dewhurst floated the idea of a wage tax (i.e., a thinly disguised income tax) back in 2005.

Today the Dewhurst campaign stepped down from the Ivory Tower to punch back, calling attention to a story that Cruz, in his career as a private appellate lawyer, represented a Chinese firm in a patent dispute with an American firm, and to an interview with Laura Ingraham in which he expressed opposition to a Senate bill that seeks sanctions against China for currency manipulation. (A complete transcript of the Ingraham show appearance can be found here.)

Here’s the exact language from Steven Cheung of Dewhurst for Texas:

The day after Texas Monthly’s Paul Burka reported on Ted Cruz acting as legal counsel to a Chinese company accused of patent infringement against an American inventor, Cruz again showed his true colors by again defending China’s interests on the Laura Ingraham Show. To check out our latest video that has highlights, please click here.

By standing on the same side as President Barack Obama, a fellow elitist, Harvard attorney with zero business experience, Cruz and Obama strongly oppose a bill that would curb China’s predatory trade and currency practices in a time when they are taking over ownership of the American economy.

“It’s about holding China accountable for what China is doing that is completely without integrity and subverting the principles of free trade,” said Ingraham. Moments later, Ingraham correctly declared, “Obama’s with you on this bill!”

At a time when millions of Americans are without jobs, why does Ted Cruz consistently put the needs of China before America?

To my mind, this is fairly weak sauce by the Dewhurst campaign, and the tone is overreaching. Representing clients is what lawyers do, and it’s not like Cruz is working pro bono for convicted terrorists.

And I happen to be on Cruz’s side on the China bill, as are (as far as I can tell) the vast majority of conservitive commentators and economists. Sure, China manilpulates it’s currency…but so do we, Europe, and just about everyone else. Protectionism is still loser economics, and starting a trade war in the midst of a recession is not a great idea.

Whether these criticisms will play with Republican primary voters is another question. Tom Leppert’s been using the lawyer line of attack on Cruz without any notable effect for months now, but China bashing is seldom unpopular; it’s also, as far as I can tell, seldom an effective wedge issue, either.

But it’s interesting to note that the gloves have finally come off for the Dewhurst campaign. I don’t think his soi distant Ivory Tower approach was going to tide him over until he could carpet-bomb the primary with big direct mail and ad buys. Despite Dewhurst’s status as presumptive frontrunner, Cruz continues to make noise and rack up conservative endorsements both locally and nationally.

The Dewhurst campaign seems to have finally realized they have a fight on their hands.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Cruz, Dewhurst Trade Punches”

  1. Steve Aldrin says:

    I’m sorry. Anyone who says a potential US Senator can take money from the Chinese Communists to destroy a US business is not a conservative. Sure, lawyers get to represent anyone they want. But NOT a man who wants to represent the great state of Texas in Washington. After taking $500,000 from the Chinese to kill US jobs, how are we supposed to expect him to vote on China policy.

    Exactly. Pro-China. Being a lawyer is not an excuse for bad judgement [sic].

  2. TKM says:

    You’re a paid hack Aldrin. Dewhurst has nothing to stand on other than his big pile of money. The best y’all can do is attack Cruz over doing his job, because he has impeccable conservative credentials. Go spend more of Dew’s money, loser.

  3. Lindon says:

    The patent trade case is disturbing. But on the Chinese currency manipulation bill in Congress, a conservative case can be made against it. China’s so-called manipulation is to link their currency to the U.S. dollar. Fixed exchanged rates are beneficial to trade.

    Laura Ingraham tries to use guilt by association by saying Cruz and Obama agree. That’s silly, since Ingraham agrees with Chuck Schumer (D-NY and sponsor of the bill)! The argument should be made on the merits, not who is or is not supporting it.

  4. Beldar says:

    Let’s put it this way: the Fed is busy doing trillions of dollars worth of “quantitative easing,” which the Chinese consider, with not a little justification, to be as manipulative as anything they’re doing with the yuan. I’m disappointed to see Lt. Gov. Dewhurst sign on to protectionism and against free trade (which is not a zero-sum game).

    The criticism for representing a foreign client in an international business dispute is despicable, and Dewhurst should be ashamed of it and apologize for it.

  5. ez says:

    Weak sauce? Defending Chinese patent pirates is weak, are you kidding me! In todays’ environment this guy represents a Chinese company against and American company and thats weak sauce… Sheesh!

    Try this link for additional info…
    http://www.meetjordanfishman.com/

    The info on the site indicates they beleive that they Chinese are trying to outlive the defendant and maybe thats true. The case number is 10-2271 and is in the 4th circuit of appeals. No briefs have been filed as of today so maybe they really do want to delay this thing. Of course it could just be that Cruz needs more time to campaign and isn’t available to defend his Chinese friends.

    The calendar doesn’t show any hits for this case either.
    http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/

    I’m sure someone can make the case that a Harvard educated lawyer could really be a conservative but I would say snake oil salesman is more like it.

  6. […] isn’t named Morgan, Lewis, Bockius and Cruz, this is pretty weak sauce. (Weaker even than the working for Red China slam, which at least had the virtue of involving Cruz […]

Leave a Reply