Ted Cruz is the subject of a very favorable Brian Bolduc cover story in the October 17 issue of National Review. (I’ll link to it when it’s actually online.) It doesn’t get much better than that for a conservative candidate.
Cruz was also endorsed by Citizens United (for whom I used to work back in the day).
Blue Dot Blues says that David Dewhurst’s claims of opposing in-state tuition breaks for illegal aliens is “a really disingenuous position for Dewhurst to take,” since he neither campaigned against the issue, nor did anything about it in all the years he’s been in a position to do so.
Dewhurst’s campaign page says that he met with “grassroots leaders” in Corpus Christi, but doesn’t say who they were or what groups they were associated with. Nor can I find mentions of the meeting via news or blog searches. More details, please.
Dewhurst also had a fundraiser in Abilene. Hmmm: Corpus, Abilene. Dewhurst might be making early swings through the smaller cities of Texas, with an eye toward hitting the bigger ones toward the end of the campaign. That sounds like it could be a pretty sound strategy to me.
I think pretty much all the Republican candidates treated Obama’s “jobs proposal” and the pathetic joke it was, so I’m not going to link to individual instances.
This Saturday there’s going to be a Senate candidate forum in either Garland or Plano; the venue link is at odds with the description under it. I’m seeing multiple descriptions of the venue as “Collin County Community College, Spring Creek Campus Living Legends Conference Center, AA135, 2800 E. Spring Creek Parkway, Plano, TX,” so I would go with that. Update: I’ve confirmed with multiple sources that the Plano address is the correct one.
Here’s a write-up on last week’s Kingwood Area Republican Women candidate’s forum.
And once again, this week, Democratic frontrunner Ricardo Sanchez…did absolutely nothing. Maybe he’s practicing for the title role in Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot.
When I did this video interview with Ted Cruz on July 30, I also did an audio interview with him at the same time using an iPhone App called Recorder Pro. The video interview was done by Cruz’s staff (who have a much better camera than I do), and the resulting video was editing done to a sort of “Best of” piece emphasizing his campaign themes. I actually think the full interview will be more interesting to conservatives, as he goes into more detail about a number of topics, including border control, the budget deficit, and federal commerce clause overreach and the 10th Amendment, including a discussion of Wickard vs. Filburn.
It’s taken a good bit longer to get it the audio up here than I wanted to, mainly because I’ve been pretty busy, but also because it was something of a pain to edit the interview and get it up here. First, I had Recorder Pro record in CAF format, which isn’t particularly widely used, so I needed one program to convert it into a .WAV file, and then another to edit the file (there was about a minute and a half of extraneous setup noise I wanted to spare you). Then, after all that, I found out the resulting audio file was too large post all at once, so I’ve split it into two chunks. The first half of the interview is below as an MP3. I’ll try to put up the second half in the next day or so, assuming I don’t get distracted by shiny objects.
Here’s the video edit of my interview with Ted Cruz (click for a larger version on YouTube):
(I think I should have sucked in my gut more.)
After the interview, Cruz said that he reads the blog (which I believe, as I’ve interacted with several members of his campaign who read the blog over the past few months). I said that I started covering the race so closely mainly because the MSM was doing such a poor job of it. He agreed, and said that people wouldn’t start paying attention until the last week. I think he’s right.
Honestly, I have no real issue or ideological concerns with Cruz. If elected, I think he would easily be the best senator Texas has had since Phil Gramm. I do have some small minor concerns with him as a candidate (see this post for some context on the below points). A lot of the things I quibble over is Cruz following standard “How to Campaign 101.” However, I think they may not work as well as in the past for this year, and this particular race.
Frequently Cruz would take the question as asked and segue into one of his talking points, sometimes smoothly, sometimes not. I believe Cruz is right, that the general public is only paying attention to the race in the last week. But this is going to be a long campaign, and I believe Cruz is a bit too “on message” for this stage of the campaign. This part of the campaign, in addition to building a campaign infrastructure and raising money, is to convince Tea Party and Republican Party stalwarts that you’re their guy. Among the Tea Party especially, there’s a certain wariness with politicians being too slick and too programmed. In addition to conservative positions and record (which Cruz has in spades), I think Tea Party patriots are looking for genuine authenticity and sincerity. (“Sincerity – if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” —George Burns). I think that’s a big reason Glenn Addison won the straw poll at the more recent forum. Cruz is a very good off-the-cuff speaker, and I think he needs a bit less scripting and a bit more continuity at this stage of the campaign.
I gave Cruz the opportunity to criticize his rival candidates and he declined, bringing the question around to his Proven Conservative bit. This is also standard practice: Let the candidate take the high road and let proxies and allies handle the attacks. But I’m not sure that wisdom holds anymore, especially in Texas. Rick Perry went negative early, hard and often on Kay Baily Hutchison, and it didn’t hurt his chances at all. I think the Tea Party is looking for a fighter, and don’t think it would hurt Cruz to engage Dewhurst and Leppert on their respective conservative records (or lack thereof) early and often.
Again, keep in mind this is coming from someone who’s observing Cruz more closely than 99.9% of primary voters ever will. I think Cruz is still far and away the candidate that most closely fits William F. Buckley’s definition of who people should vote for, namely “the most conservative viable candidate.”
Thanks again to Ted Cruz (and his campaign) for allowing me the opportunity to interview him.
I have a longer audio version of this interview, covering more topics, I hope to put up later this week
But don’t worry: I’m sure this decision won’t affect the State Department’s ability to supply us with a steady stream of Wahabbist clerics from Saudi Arabia…
Ricardo Sanchez finally has a website up, though Google still can’t find it, and it was only announced on his Facebook page yesterday. I wonder why it took so long, since he announced back on May 11; it doesn’t take a month to put up a website.
Also, he’s apparently going to be running as “Ric Sanchez,” though most of the media (save the Dallas Morning News) don’t appear to have gotten the memo.
The website actually contains some policy substance, though you have to wade through lots of vague, boilerplate, focus-group tested blather to get to it:
Sanchez, after some hemming, hawing, and hand-wringing, supports the Dream Act illegal alien amnesty. Despite some vague comments on “enforcement of our existing immigration laws” and a nod to the drain illegal aliens put on state and federal budgets, there’s absolutely no mention of completing the border fence, and no mention of the narco-terrorist war raging in Mexico.
He also supports teachers unions. He mentions vouchers (but not school choice or charter schools), but in the sort of highly-qualified way that makes you think he only wants them for public schools. And he slams the No Child Left Behind Act, critics of which are not exclusive to the left.
So far, so standard for liberal Democrats. However, in “The Economy and Job Creation” section, in addition to the usual “green jobs,” “social safety net” and “infrastructure” blather all Obama-era Democrats parrot, there’s this: “The best approach to creating jobs in Texas is for us to provide tax cuts, incentives, and increase financing support for small businesses.” Never mind that the entire page is vague to the point of distraction, never mind that the words “budget deficit” and “national debt” are nowhere to be found; the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for the Texas Senate seat actually came out for tax cuts. Even more shocking is that there’s no mention of that holiest of Democratic talking points, “tax hikes on the rich.” Indeed, a Democratic candidate calling for tax cuts is so out of character that I feel compelled to take a screen shot in case the Nutroots read him the riot act and force him to scrub it, so here it is:
It’s in the third paragraph. Click to embiggen.
Granted, anyone can say anything on their website; it doesn’t mean they believe in it, and it doesn’t mean they won’t jettison it ten minutes after they’ve won election. But for a major Democratic candidate to call for tax cuts not before the general election, but even before the Democratic primary, suggests that either Texas is even more conservative a state than even we on the right realize, or (and I mention this only as a possibility) Ricardo Sanchez actually believes in tax cuts as a way to create economic growth. That would put him in agreement with the all the major Republican candidates, but it’s pretty close to heresy in today’s Democratic Party.
We’ll see what sort of reaction his positions get, assuming people can actually find his website…
Three of the four candidates came across as prepared, articulate, polished and effective speakers, and all four tried to portray themselves as tea party conservatives:
Ted Cruz was the most polished of the four, as you would expect of the former Texas Solicitor General. He was very good not only at making his points, but also expertly tying highlights of his career and life-story (like his work on 10th Amendment issues for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and his father fleeing Castro’s Cuba [see here for correction]) into answers without it seeming forced. His only drawbacks were that every now and then he would seem just a little bit too polished, his pitch modulations a little too calculated, and he needs to add a few touches of humor liven things up. (His one recycled Reagan anecdote isn’t going to cut it.) With Michael Williams out, I think Cruz cemented his status as both tea party favorite and frontrunner.
I have not made any secret of my doubts as to Tom Leppert‘s new-found conservative convictions, but he comes across as a very polished and prepared speaker. He says that he cut a lot of unnecessary programs as Dallas Mayor; when I get a chance, I’m going to ask his campaign for a list. If you didn’t know about his previous record, you would think him just as conservative as his compatriots. He did have a couple of weaknesses as a public speaker: shrugging and spreading his hands was his go-to move for almost every question. He also displayed a sort of nervous eye-twitch between questions, maybe because of the bright stage lights. But guess what? There are going to be a lot of bright stage lights between now and March…
Roger Williams had the most varied performance: He has an engaging, natural personality (with just the right touch of rough-hewn “old coot” country charm) and can clearly hold his own against his more polished opponents, but he went back to his “I’m a small businessman” routine two or three times too many, and too transparently. On the other hand, Williams also got the best laugh lines of the night. Referring back to an earlier question about how he’d eliminate the budget deficit in one year (he didn’t think the Ryan plan went far enough), in a question on the the EPA’s attempt to take over Texas air quality, he said “You know that 1.6 trillion I’d cut out of the deficit? The EPA would be among them.” Williams probably improved his standing the most of any candidate attending.
Elizabeth Ames Jones…look, I’m not going to sugarcoat this. Jones should get out of the race. It wasn’t her message (she made effective conservative points), it’s the fact that she was a cringingly bad public speaker tonight. I can’t tell if it’s nervousness or an actual speech impediment, but her voice sounded like it was trapped at the back of her soft palate, almost as if she had all her wisdom teeth yanked a week ago and was still getting use to her own mouth, and late in the debate she seemed to have a slight lisp. She spoke like someone who was so eager to talk that the words all tried to come out in a rush at once, causing her to stumble over herself, stop and start, and generally sound nervous; way too nervous for someone that already holds a major statewide office. She calmed down a little bit after the first couple of questions, and occasionally made good points (“I have to fight the EPA every day”), but she was far and away the weakest candidate on stage by a good measure. And her “I was down in the trenches” refrain (mostly dealing with her time in the legislature) got even tireder than Williams’ small businessman shtick. Between this and her abysmal fundraising numbers, I see no hope for Jones in this race and no reason she should continue in it. She’s doing a good job on the Railroad Commission, and she should probably stay there for the immediate future.
Not a lot of policy differences on display. All agreed not to raise taxes under any circumstances (I wondered why moderator Evan Smith didn’t ask any of them “Not even in the event of a World War with China?”), all were on-board with the Ryan plan or an even more immediate cutback in federal spending, all for greater border control measures and against amnesty, all pro-life (one of Jones’ most effective moments), all more national energy exploration, all against earmarks, all slamming Obama.
Enough for tonight. I’ll post more tomorrow if I have the time.
Speaking of Leppert 2.0, he was seen at a fundraiser for Mitt Romney. Maybe the two of them got together to commiserate on being unfairly dinged for little things like actual governing records.
Gay activist and Stonewall Democrats of Dallas President Omar Narvaez laments the disappearing act of Leppert 1.0: “[Tom Leppert] was our friend [when he first ran for the office] but when he decided to run for higher office, suddenly he wasn’t our friend.”
Jonathan Chait is buying into Obama’s Latino strategy. But this ignores Micky Kaus’s point: How many times can Obama verbally flog amnesty without actually do anything about it before pro-illegal alien voters realize he’s all talk and no action? How many times can Lucy snatch away that football before Charlie Brown finally wises up?
Why did the media endlessly hype the Rapture predictions of a few far-out-of-the-mainstream evangelical Christians? Easy: “smug superiority and cheap laughs…There’s a cruelty underlying our desire to laugh at this story—a desire to see people humiliated and to revel in our own superiority and rationality—even though the people in question are pretty tragic characters.” True, as far as it goes, but it’s missing one important reason: the loathing of all forms of Christianity by urban atheist adherents of competing religious beliefs (big government liberalism) and unlikely eschatologies (global warming).
Ex-Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney pops up to condemn the bombing of Libya. From Libya. I think the over/under for how long it will be before she’s actually endorsing Hamas suicide bombings against Israeli preschools is two weeks.
Democratic Senate candidate Sean Hubbard hopes to raise $5,000 by the end of the month. That would seem to be a reasonable goal, but he’s going to need (at a minimum) about ten times that if he wants have even a dark-horse hope of derailing the DNC coronation of Ricardo Sanchez. Surely there are still enough nutroots Code Pink types in Texas that disgruntled by Obama’s continuation of “Bush’s Wars” to come up with that to oppose the “Abu Ghraib” candidate…
Tom Leppert bashes the IMF. Just because I doubt Mr. Leppert’s conservative bonafides doesn’t mean he’s wrong.
Speaking of Leppert, he’s put up a No Amnesty petition. The Race to Replace Kay Baily Hutchison is not impressed: “Tom Leppert governed as a Liberal and wants Republicans to believe he is a conservative.”
Roger Williams sets up a separate website to slam Obama’s job on the economy and boost his own chances. This strikes me as a good move, but I think the site is a little lite on content right now; a splash page and a video are a nice start, but he should have links to more information for each of his four subheads. There’s plenty of ammunition for the charge that Obama has screwed up the economy, and the more he can put up there, the more likely voters are to consider Roger Williams’ campaign.
Mickey Kaus: “Why do these Democrats tell pollsters that immigrants are a burden because they ‘take our jobs’? Maybe because they do. Just a thought.”
The New York Times gets the Texas Senate Race, well, not quite right. “So far, only Republicans have declared in the Senate race.” False. Political neophyte Sean Hubbard has declared for the Democratic nomination, and has been filing his campaign financing reports with the FEC. “At least seven Republicans are vying for the seat being vacated by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.” Technically true but incomplete; there are five declared major candidates (Ted Cruz, Tom Leppert, Michael Williams, Roger Williams, and Elizabeth Ames Jones), three declared longshot candidates (Glenn Addison, Andrew Castanuela, and Lela Pettinger), one withdrawn candidate who filed her wind-down report with the FEC (Florence Shapiro) and one undeclared potential frontrunner (David Dewhurst). Saying “At least seven” makes me wonder exactly who you’re counting…
The Race to Replace KBH on Senate candidate Twitter antagonists. “Big fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite them/And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so on ad infinitum…”
More on Leppert’s SEIU support from the horse-mouth, SEIU Texas political coordinator Shannon Perez in the lefty Dallas Observer:
“The Republican primary voters of the state of Texas need to know the truth about Tom Leppert.
When he first ran for Mayor, as a moderate and a supporter of working men and women, he was pro-SEIU, pro-public employees organizing, pro-collective bargaining.
So committed to these ideals was Tom, that he vigorously pursued SEIU’s endorsement.
So committed to these ideals was Tom, that he came to our union organizing launch in the Water Department — encouraging folks to join SEIU. So committed to these ideals was Tom, he frequently threw on an SEIU T-shirt and came to our union hall…Tom even signed an SEIU membership card!
Tom, Tom, Tom, it makes it hard to take your Second-Coming-of-Ronald-Reagan rhetoric seriously when stuff like this keeps tumbling out of your closet. Is it too late for you to switch to the Democratic Primary? You’ve already got a huge lead over Sean Hubbard…
