Ted Cruz

This category contains 48 posts

Ted Cruz Debates Dan Patrick (#TxSen)

“Every time I go on the radio, you ask the questions that the Dewhurst campaign want you to ask.”

This, from the guy who got caught red-handed trying to influence debate questions by a fellow candidate in order to team up against Lt. Governor Dewhurst!

Listen to the radio confrontation between Ted Cruz and Texas Senator Dan Patrick on Patrick’s “The Bell and Patrick” radio show, for yourself:

Mr. Cruz argued with Patrick for 30 minutes on the Baker and Patrick Radio Show that airs on KSEV  radio in the Houston area at 4 PM, week days. He unfortunately began with the flat statement that Senator Patrick had endorsed Dewhurst in the Senate race. You would think that a man would know that sort of thing, right? As Patrick said, if he’d done so, it would be public knowledge.

Cruz actually claimed that all Republicans and Democrats play a “game” with legislation they don’t want to pass, by entering into a conspiracy to pass a bill in one chamber in Session, and then in the other the next, but cheat to keep them from passing to law.

Senator Patrick spent quite a bit of time explaining the complicated workings of the Texas Senate, especially the work on the Sanctuary Cities Bills (SB 29 and HB 41) during last Summer’s Special Session of the 82nd Texas Legislature.

The two discussed the “Rose Bush Rule,” which requires 21 members of the Senate to vote in favor of bringing any issue up for a vote. Patrick reminded Cruz that the Senate members, not the Lieutenant Governor, vote on the rules of the Senate. Patrick also explained that the Lieutenant Governor has the authority to suspend that rule in a Special Session, but not in a Regular Session.

Cruz asked Patrick whether Patrick would have been able to pass Sanctuary Cities if he had been Lt. Governor. Patrick said, “No,” because “the only thing you can do is pass it out of the Senate.” Patrick said that Dewhurst had warned the Democrats in the Regular session that if they blocked the bill in the Regular Session, he would suspend the 21 vote rule in the Special Session. Patrick reported that Dewhurst did suspend the rule as he said, in order to pass the Sanctuary Cities Bill with over two weeks left in the SS and spoke of the frustration of having the Bill sit in Committee in the House.

He also told Cruz that all 19 Republican Senators had met on the issue and decided to pass SB29 as a separate Bill, rather than to try to tack HB41 as an amendment to the School Finance Bill. They were concerned that the school funding bill would be held up, preventing schools from knowing their budget until August.

Cruz ignored Patrick’s admonition to campaign on his own merits and plans, returning again and again to statements about what people “intend,” “know,” or ” believe.” Cruz accused Patrick and others of working against him, assigning underhanded motives to them, such as how much “better” for Patrick it will be to get Dewhurst out of Austin.

The creepiest bit of Cruz’ argument was this line, delivered with a strategic lowering of the voice at the last: “You have been acting as a surrogate for Lt. Gov. Dewhurst and I have seen you do it.”

I’ve described Cruz’ reactions to me when I was still a supporter asking him to cut back on the negative campaigning. At our County forum in February and then in New Braunfels. At the New Braunfels meet, he couldn’t walk away so he engaged me in debate. He kept coming at me for twenty minutes although others had questions.

Here’s a news report about another episode of over-reacting to questioning by another woman in Fort Worth at the RPT convention.

Cruz is not a “fighter” in any good sense of the word. Rather than a champion or defender, he’s a bully and a brawler. When faced with even mild opposition, he goes out of his way to prove the other person absolutely wrong. As Patrick said, he can “make numbers lie,” and has no problem with stretching the truth if it has what he calls “a basis in fact.” He sprinkles his speeches with dramatic descriptions of imagined conspiracies such as the ones above, and the notion that “Austin” Republicans had all agreed to make sure that “no one with a ‘z’ in his name is elected to State-wide office.”

For other summaries of the episode, each with their own twist, see the Houston Chronicle and Texas Tribune. But listen to the actual recording if you want the real story.

Praise for a centrist (#TxSen @DavidHDewhurst on @teDCruz)

In a two page letter in a November, 2008 mailer from The National Law Journal, Ted Cruz (then a new partner in a global law firm)  wrote a letter endorsing John McCain for President.

Many of us supported Senator McCain in 2008.  Like Cruz, we may have commended McCain for his military service, for voting on principle, and for his efforts to fight the war on terror. Some of us may have cast our vote for Sarah Palin or against Obama.

However, Mr. Cruz specifically praises John McCain for his “moderation,” for being a  “centrist,” and for his avoidance of “divisive” issues: abortion, marriage, tort reform, free trade, and union “bosses.”

National Law Journal: Why I Choose McCain (By Ted Cruz)

Obama, to his credit, speaks often of bipartisanship. But there are virtually no issues of consequence where he has dared to part with the far left of his party. Trial lawyers, union organizers, protectionists, and advocates for gay rights and abortion rights make up some of the core constituencies of the modern Democratic party. And, predictably, Obama has pledged to oppose tort reform; to abolish secret elections for union organization (which would render workers vulnerable to being strong-armed into voting for union bosses); to oppose free trade with allies like Colombia and to “renegotiate” NAFTA; to oppose a federal Marriage Amendment; and to sign legislation repealing restrictions on “partial-birth” abortion, parental notification, and government funding of abortion.

McCain’s record, in contrast, reflects far greater moderation. Rather than advocate on these divisive issues, McCain has focused his passion on fighting and winning the global war on terror.

I’ll admit that the only reference I can give is a link posted in a “hit piece” on the David Dewhurst for Texas Senator campaign website. Nevertheless, the letter is reproduced in full and says what it says. He doesn’t pull punches when it comes to Islamic terrorism or the importance of naming Supreme Court justices. Why does he focus his praise, his whole endorsement, on what many of us on the right would consider Mr. McCain’s weaknesses?


Spinning his “whole life”

I was reading an amateur pop-psychology post on the differences between Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst and would-be-Senator-for-life, Ted Cruz.  After dispensing with the body language voodoo, the author inserted the obligatory quotes that I’ve heard Cruz repeat for four years.

Or should I say, “all my life?”

What always gets me is Cruz’ “my whole life” line, as in, “I’ve been fighting for the Constitution my whole life.”

  •  As though law school and law clerk are equivalent to service in the Air Force and CIA;
  •  As though debate club is the same as World class cutting horse competition in your 60’s; or
  • As though becoming one of 1200 partners in what he calls a “global law firm” while running for first one, and then another office is the same as scratching out a $200+ Million successful energy business and then running for and winning first one, and then another, State-wide elective office.

Of course, there’s also Cruz’ claim that Dewhurst is a “career politician,” although the Lieutenant Governor didn’t run for office until he was 10 yrs older than Cruz is now and after accomplishing all of the above. Does Cruz truly believe that running for two different offices for the last 4 years makes him any less a “career politician” than actual service in two different elected office for 13 yrs?


Vote @DavidHDewhurst 4 #TxSen for life of service, not spin.

@DavidHDewhurst knows Obama Administration is his real opponent #TxSen

Has anyone considered that the real reason David Dewhurst speaks so quietly is that he was not only an officer in the Air Force, but a case officer for the CIA in South America and knows the consequences of angry words and challenges?

And yet, he knows what the problem is and has solutions that will work. From the Dewhurst for Texas website:

“The Supreme Court’s partial ruling on the Arizona immigration law only spotlights the abject failure of the federal government to secure the border. Today’s decision reinforces the need for conservatives in Congress to once and for all quit talking and secure the border. The first step is triple the size of the Border Patrol and authorize them to fight back. Congress must make states and local communities partners in securing the border, allowing them the tools necessary to enforce the laws of our Nation. Any legislation that provides a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens must be dead on arrival, and we must look at all the tools in our arsenal to address the influx of illegal immigrants, the threat of narco-terrorists and drug cartels.”

In stark contrast, Ted Cruz, who has never served a day in the military or elected office, used his announcement to make false charges against Lt. Governor Dewhurst.

“This makes clear that sanctuary cities exist only because of state and local decision-making; it highlights that we have sanctuary cities in Texas only because Lt. Gov. Dewhurst killed the bill that would have ended sanctuary cities. Had the Texas Legislature passed that bill—had Lt. Governor Dewhurst not run from the fight and prevented its passage—then today’s decision would have upheld that Texas law as well.”

While the Supreme Court’s ruling does not prove anything about Sanctuary Cities. And, in fact, the Sanctuary Cities Bill passed in the Senate in the Special Session on June 15, giving the House 2 weeks to address it.

This press release was not the time to attack a fellow Republican. He doesn’t seem to understand that on August 1, we’ll all be Republicans working to vote out Obama.

But then, that’s been the Cruz’ campaign’s problem all along and why I switched from Cruz to Dewhurst.

teDCruz Ruse #6: Ted Cruz deceives about being a fighter @DavidHDewhurst for Texas

Description of a fighter and doer, vs. a talker, from the Dewhurt for Texas website:

In his early 20s, his son, David Dewhurst, entered the United States Air Force. In his early 20s, Ted Cruz was the 1992 North American Debate Champion while matriculating at Ivy League universities.

In his mid-20s, David Dewhurst entered the Central Intelligence Agency, serving abroad during the Cold War. In his mid-20s, Ted Cruz began his career as a lawyer and bureaucrat in Washington, where he has spent nearly half of his career.

In his 30s, David Dewhurst founded Falcon Seaboard from scratch, a company that created hundreds of American jobs. Ted Cruz spent the overwhelming majority of his 30s as a bureaucratic staffer or running for public office. One of the most significant “fights” that Ted Cruz lost as a result of his incompetence was Kennedy v. Louisiana, which gutted Jessica’s Law. When his ineptitude was discovered by the New York Times, his first instinct was to find excuses so he did not “look silly.”

In his 40s, David Dewhurst continued growing his successful business located in Houston, Texas. In his 40s, Ted Cruz began running full time for political office and recruiting reprehensible yet highly lucrative clients across the globe, and enabling a foreign company to destroy jobs here in America.

Not until his 50’s, after a very successful business career that David Dewhurst entered public service. After years in Washington, Ted Cruz refused to pledge to limit himself to two terms in the U.S. Senate, and seeks to spend the rest of his life as an elected official in Washington, D.C.

Ted Cruz may claim to be a fighter, but David Dewhurst knows that freedoms aren’t defended in the court rooms. They are defended by the men and women serving our country in the Armed Forces.

@DavidHDewhurst and the “Payroll Tax” Press Release (False Charge)

During the Friday night televised debate between Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz, Cruz asked the Lieutenant Governor whether he had ever “supported a payroll tax.” The Lt. Governor answered “No.” This “When did you stop beating your wife” tactic has been the subject of much crowing from Cruz supporters who accuse the LG of lying.

In fact, the LG was telling the truth and the whole issue is baseless spin, resulting from cherry picking  two words out of hundreds in a Press Release from May 12, 2005, reproduced in part, here:

That highlighted sentence says, “Texas businesses will have a choice of paying either a low-rate revised franchise tax or a payroll tax.”

The LG definitely praised parts of HB 2 and HB 3, but the release doesn’t mention “payroll tax” until a brief note in the 4th paragraph about alternatives for calculating the tax owed by the businesses.The word “payroll” is not found in the Bill passed out of the Senate. It is not found in “quotes” in this document, so is not part of a statement made by the Lt. Governor.

The falsehoods don’t stop there. Early last Fall, Cruz has used a Wall Street Journal editorial to blur the line between the Business Franchise Tax and a State “income tax.” Editorials are simply opinion, they are not news reports and are not sufficient evidence of anything except someone’s opinion.

Cruz himself, admitted in New Braunfels last month that the “payroll tax” is in reality a hundred-years-old business tax and that he knows that Attorney General Greg Abbott successfully defended against the claim that it is an income tax on businesses, in front of the Supreme Court last November. Anyone who wants to understand the tax, could just read the AG’s response to the lawsuit, submitted to the Court in August, 2011.

Cruz’ supporters go even farther than Mr. Cruz and claim over and over on Twitter and in blogs that the LG supported or proposed not just a “payroll tax,” but a “personal income tax.”

Neither the “gotcha” question from Mr. Cruz nor this press release is something that the Cruz campaign should have based its criticism on. It certainly is not support for the false claims – beginning in the Fall of 2011 – that Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst supported either a “payroll tax” or an “income tax.”

teDCruz Ruse #5: Attack @GovernorPerry for endorsing @DavidHDewhurst

Governor Rick Perry released the following statement last night in response to Ted Cruz’s false attacks:

“Earlier this evening Ted Cruz falsely characterized my rationale for endorsing my friend and conservative colleague David Dewhurst for the US Senate. David Dewhurst championed and passed multiple tax cuts, billions in spending cuts, major tort reform and strong pro-life measures. David will build on that Texas conservative success in the US Senate to overhaul Washington, block President Obama’s socialist agenda and restore the 10th amendment of the US Constitution. Making false statements about my motives or David Dewhurst’s conservative record is a disservice to Texas voters.”

via teDCruz Ruse #5: Ted Cruz attacks Gov. Rick Perry for endorsing David Dewhurst | Dewhurst for Texas.

Together, Governor Rick Perry and Lt. Governor David Dewhurst worked to:

  • Defund Planned Parenthood
  • Pass 51 tax cuts for a savings of over $14.5 billion for Texas taxpayers
  • Pass the largest tax cut in Texas history
  • Pass Photo Voter ID
  • Pass landmark tort reform to make the trial lawyer agenda obsolete



Governor Perry, integrity, Texas Senate Race

That doesn’t sound like a man who is being “expedient.” He isn’t just praising Texas’ success in general. No, Governor  Perry is giving credit to Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst for his conservative leadership.

And yet, Ted Cruz, “fighter,” believes he knows the Governor’s real motive.

From the press conference after the debate:

DALLAS — U.S. Senate candidate Ted Cruz is questioning Gov. Rick Perry‘s support for opponent David Dewhurst, saying Perry only supports Dewhurst to “get him out of Austin.”

Cruz saved his sharpest comments for reporters after he and Dewhurst exchanged words in an hour-long KERA/Channel 13 debate, dominated by Cruz’s criticism of Dewhurst for “negotiating” and “cutting deals” with Democrats in 10 years as the presiding officer in the Texas Senate.

First, Cruz told reporters the “Texas political establishment” is opposing him because “there are a lot of folks in Texas who would very much like to get him out of the state legislature and send him to Washington.”

Later in the press conference, Cruz named Perry, saying Perry and Dewhurst “have fought tooth-and-nail” over state budgets but “It is in [Perry’s] political interest to get rid of David Dewhurst and get him out of Austin and send him somewhere else.”

Cruz is Cr
CrRead more here:

Compare Dewhurst and Cruz as Candidates for Senate

My husband received this in the mail yesterday from a fellow Texas Republican and his wife. The only problem I can find is the description of the law firm as “Democrat.” Cruz calls it a “global law firm.”  I might have added a comparison of their charity giving, but maybe some of that is covered in the “Republican Activity.”


Ted Cruz spin, spin, spin

At work on Monday morning, I received a call on my cell phone from Jessica with the Ted Cruz campaign, stumbling over “Mrs. Nuckols” and offering me the chance to be a “host” at their fundraiser next week.

I guess someone didn’t get the memo that I switched my support to Texas’ Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst for Texas Senator months ago. Or that after being invited by several emails and phone calls – two on my cell phone, a couple at home – I challenged Mr. Cruz at a “meet and greet” here in New Braunfels back in May. Jessica’s call inspired me to revive this post I’ve been editing, on and off, since June 1.

Why would I change from one candidate to the other, even after donating money?

It comes down to principles.

As I’m sure is true for many of you, I don’t just listen to what candidates and those who endorse them say.  I look at how candidates make their decisions and conduct their campaigns.

The Conservative reveals his principles by how he reaches his conclusions every bit as much as  by his decisions and the end results of those decisions. Evaluating the decision process is especially important when the candidate has no voting or legislative history to back his rhetoric.

Ted Cruz’ problem is not only that he can’t match David Dewhurst’s solid record of Conservative victories in the Texas Senate. It’s that he hasn’t demonstrated that he acts from solid principles. In fact, rather than basing his campaign on a solid ground of philosophy, talent and plans for reform that would have strengthened the Conservative movement, Cruz set out to destroy the reputation of a good Conservative Texas Legislator by spinning half-truths and lies into campaign issues.

Mr. Cruz doesn’t even take responsibility when proven wrong or when called out for trying to cheat.

Perhaps one of the most out of control moments of Cruz’ spin – at least until the recent attack on a veteran by one of his supporters – was the day last September 9, 2011 when he exchanged snide remarks about Dewhurst with the Texas Tribune’s Evan Smith.  Both ignored the fact that the Lt. Governor was Acting Governor dealing with the wildfires in Bastrop   and in other areas of Texas. Evidently, lost lives and homes don’t trump campaign ops or opportunities for Mr. Cruz.

At that meeting in New Braunfels, Cruz gave us example after example of his spin:

  • Cruz told the group that he had raised more money than David Dewhurst, forgetting that we had known the rest of the story for a week: “The Cruz campaign later clarified to the Dallas Morning News that the $6.1 million included money raised in the nine days beyond the May 9 deadline, which was the cut-off date for Dewhurst’s numbers.”
  • Several times he claimed that the Dewhurst campaign had called him a “yellow Chinese Communist” because one email from a Dewhurst staffer called him “Red Ted.” (This was repeated in his speech to the Republican Party Convention. Mr. Cruz ought to talk to my friend, “Red Sonja.”)
  • He once again claimed that Lt. Governor Dewhurst had proposed a fictitious State “income tax” that never was (although, when confronted, he admitted to our group that the tax was actually a business franchise tax that was “a hundred years old”) and made the false charge that the Lt. Governor “killed” both the TSA Anti-Groping Bill (passed in the Senate June 27, 2011) and the Sanctuary Cities Bill (passed by the Senate June 15th) in 2011.
  •  He doubled down on his ads’ claim that Jordan Fishman is not an “American manufacturer,” and then criticized Mr. Fishman for not paying enough taxes, as though the money he earns belongs to the American government.
  • He charged that endorsements and donations from Texans to Dewhurst were due to fear of retaliation.
  • Perhaps worst of all, he made a dramatic show of cupping the microphone and speaking in a breathy voice when claiming that the “Austin” Republicans had determined that “no one with a ‘z’ in their name” would be elected to State-wide office.

Don’t we get tired of the combative political campaign spin that’s all jargon and no judgement?  The way out of the stall that causes a plane to spin is to turn out of the spin and regain thrust, rather than continue to corkscrew into the ground.

Moran, Pierson, and Twitter

Have y’all been following the insult to Former Marine Dan Moran by Katrina Pierson? She called him “deformed” and said he is being exploited because he endorsed Lieutenant David Dewhurst for Texas Senate. Here’s the archived page.

(I received the whole thing through retweets, since I blocked Pierson on Sunday, before all of this happened.)

Follow @danmoran on Twitter to see his side of the conversation. Pierson deleted the “offening” comment on her account.
The Twitter debate continued for a few hours, and caught the notice of Texas’ press, including the Austin American Statesman and the Texas Tribune, where Cruz is now demanding that the Dewhurst campaign apologize to Pierson. He posted similar comments on his website, claiming that it’s paid staffers, rather than those of us who are voluntarily supporting Dewhurst. Like Captain Moran and Katrina, we are all independent agents able to decide what we do, without being “exploited.”

Here’s Dan’s tweet: “”Daniel Patrick Moran ‏@DanMoran_ My face might be “deformed” but not my character & honor! MT“@KatrinaPierson: Dewhurst exploits deformed disabled vet in intro video”#txsen””

Here’s Katrina’s “apology:” “”Katrina Pierson ‏@KatrinaPierson @DanMoran_ I apologize if my comments toward Dewhurst offened you. This is not about you, however. Have we lost the 1st amendment? #txsen “”

Conservatives respect experience and history

Contrary to what many seem to believe, the Founding Fathers didn’t spring full grown from the Liberty Bell on July 4, 1776. They had served in their various Colonial legislatures for years before the Declaration and held other offices, both elected and appointed. George Washington served in the Virginia House of Burgesses for 15 years before his two terms with the Continental Congress. Jefferson served 7 years alongside Washington in the Burgesses, two terms as Virginia’s Governor, two terms on the Continental Congress, body and then became the “establishment”  Secretary of State, Vice President, and President for two terms in the nascent United States.

However, the anti-establishment cry to “throw them all out” –  that men and women who have served the public for years should be replaced with untried political neophytes for no other reason than that they have served for years and are now considered “establishment”  – has become an emotional, knee-jerk reaction that has nothing to do with any other quality or qualification of the candidates.

For example, my email is full of pleas to help Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who faces a recall election this week, alternating with demands to defeat Lt. Governor David Dewhurst of Texas in his race for US Senator. The complaint against Dewhurst is that he is “establishment” and a “professional politician.”  There are no similar complaints against Governor Walker who has been in political office of one sort or another most of his adult life. In contrast, Dewhurst served in the Air Force, worked for the CIA, and built a very successful business before running for office in his 50’s.  In addition, he’s no more “establishment” than Governor Walker, having led the Texas Senate to passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, Voter ID, de-funding Planned Parenthood, Jessica’s Law, defending our State and Nation’s border and cutting relative and actual dollars from the State budget.

When all the newly political activists got tired of yelling at their TV’s and jumped up off their couches and recliners to join our Taxed Enough Already (TEA) Party over the last 4 years, who welcomed them and gave them somewhere to start? It was the more seasoned of us in the Republican Party, since, at least until recently, virtually every Conservative was a Republican.  If you look at the Tea Party, you will see the Conservative foundation, the remnant that have opposed “centrists”  and “moderates” for years. We are the ones who have known all along what the Dems re-learn each election cycle, but some of our own never seem to: Americans are conservative, to the right of center.

In politics, as in the rest of life, “new” is not always “improved.” New candidates are not better than the incumbent just because they’re new any more than the old guys earn their promotions by merely sticking around.  By the same token, long time Conservative leaders may or may not be more able to judge policy and candidates than newer or younger members of our group. But a record of experience and training is – or should be –  considered an advantage, not a “dissed”-advantage.

Or, as my husband says, “Age and cunning trump youth and enthusiasm.” Every time.

Ted Cruz, Pit of Vipers, and the Council on Foreign Relations member in his family. (Updated)

Clarification, June 15, 2015  Please note: This article is about the disingenuous nature of several rants by the then-candidate in which he called the CFR “a pit of vipers” and “a pernicious nest of snakes,” without mentioning that his wife was a 5-year member of the Council until June, 2011 as part of her job for the Bush administration. The point is not the CFR or Mrs. Cruz’ job, but rather Mr. Cruz’ theatric performance, which would have been more honest if accompanied by more information.


I was researching a rumor that I read that Ted Cruz’ wife was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations until June, 2011 and that she was a Vice President at Goldman Sachs. I was curious how such a young woman could become a member of the CFR, an organization that I assumed only admitted (old) heads of State and incredibly powerful business interests.

I found this CFR Task Force report, “Building a North American Community,” which lists Heidi Cruz as a member of the Task Force which “applauds the announced ‘Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,’ but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it.” The news release also notes that Mrs. Cruz worked for Condyleeza Rice in the Bush White House National Security Council and had been a banker at Merrill Lynch and J. P. Morgan.

Just wow! Mrs. Cruz is much more accomplished than I’d imagined.

Further searching yielded this bit of video from Ben Smith’s October 27, 2011 blog at Politico. (There’s a break in the middle, indicating editing and the source is not “conservative,” but that’s Ted saying what he’s saying. The title is also Politico’s.)

Smith comments,

Ted Cruz, the former Texas solicitor general and tea party favorite for the Republican nomination for Senate, has been focusing some of his harshest campaign trail rhetoric on that longtime villain of those suspicious of U.S. internationalism: The Council on Foreign Relations.

The New York-based group, Cruz said at a speech to a Republican women’s group in Sugarland, Tex., last week, is “a pit of vipers.”

When asked about the Council at another event in Tyler, Tex., on Oct. 15 — Texas, home of Ron Paul and Alex Jones, is the sort of place this comes up a lot — Cruz called the organization “a pernicious nest of snakes” that is “working to undermine our sovereignty,” according to video provided by someone who opposes his candidacy.

Well, Cruz should know: The candidate’s wife, Heidi S. Cruz, was an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations until this June. She was a member until June on a 5-year “term membership” program, an official at the organization confirmed.

The video and Cruz’ comments are commented on in several news and blog sites on the ‘Net, so I don’t know how I missed it and Cruz’ play-acting for his East Texas audience.

Texas Tribune Poll and Informed Texas Voters

Texas Tribune is hyping their poll as proof that there will likely be a run off in both the Republican and Democrat primary races for US Senator. But the big news should be how well informed and politically involved Texas voters appear to be.

It’s not just the disapproval of Obama (58% total and 46% “Disapprove strongly”) or the probable vote for Mitt Romney in the graphic above. Take a look at some of the information gathering questions.

Out of 800 registered Texas voters, 48% are “extremely interested in politics and public affairs. 32% vote in every election and another 35% vote in almost every election.

73% were able to identify the majority party in the US House of Representatives. (I wish they’d cross-checked that with the same question about the Senate.) 69% correctly stated that it takes a 2/3 vote to over turn a presidential veto. And 66% correctly identified Greg Abbott as our Texas Attorney General.

Yes, we’re probably in for a couple of run off elections, and yes,it will get even uglier. But the voters are better informed than I was afraid.

“I can’t write millions and millions out of my pocket.”

So went Ted Cruz’ lament on the Mark Levin radio show. Perhaps Mr. Cruz should go to work at a real job and build his own successful business and fortune before he runs for office – and begs for our hard-earned dollars – again.

(If you missed it, as I did, you can listen on the Internet, here.  The ten minute segment begins at about 92 minutes into the May 15 program archive.)

You would think that the author of Liberty and Tyranny and Ameritopia would be celebrating David Dewhurst as the living example that free markets and the American work ethic do work, and as the Citizen Legislator that he is.

Sadly, Mr. Levin didn’t do his homework. Without giving any examples or sources for the broad accusations he made during the radio spot, he proved himself clueless about the strong Conservative credentials of Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst. He did note that Lt. Gov. Dewhurst is worth “a quarter of a billion dollars” but falsely claimed that Dewhurst – who first ran for office 13 years ago,  when he was about the same age that Levin is now – is a “pretty much a career politician.”

Neither Cruz nor Levin give Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst credit for being the self-made man that he is. They ignore the fact that Dewhurst served our Nation in the Air Force and CIA before going to work to build that “quarter of a billion dollar” business from the ground up, and only then successfully running for office to serve Texas as Land Commissioner and then Lieutenant Governor.

Cruz has never been in business, made a payroll or held an elected office. After Harvard Law School, where he founded the Harvard Latino Law Review, he held only government jobs until he decided to run for Attorney General of Texas – before he even turned 40 years old. After withdrawing from that race in 2009, rather than face current Attorney General Greg Abbott, Cruz began his run against Governor Dewhurst for Kay Bailey Hutchison’s Senate seat. In the meantime, he’s been working for a large legal firm, once again proving that he’s a successful staffer, but not a policy maker, and certainly not a decision maker.

If spending a career working at government jobs and running for office for the last four years isn’t the definition of “pretty much a career politician,” then what is?

Revised grammar, 5/16/12, BBN.

Joe Pags forces Ted Cruz to answer

Joe Pags – WOIA radio afternoon drive time host in San Antonio –  exposes Ted Cruz for his early attack ads and aggressively challenges him when he refuses to answer questions.  Jump to 9 minutes or so in to listen: May 9, 2012 Joe Pags interview with Ted Cruz  He dances all around the question, until Pags gets irritated.

You can read the legal brief that calls Cruz the  “Counsel of Record,” here.  Wouldn’t that make him the “lead” lawyer for the appeal?

And here’s the 2005 Wall Street Journal opinion piece that Cruz claims “proves” his accusations against Dewhurst.  There is no other “proof.”

(The real story on the “wage tax” comments is nowhere in this editorial: there was discussion about the best way to levy the franchise business tax that was being updated to include businesses across the board, some of which were exempted up to that time. Should the tax be on gross receipts before taxes and expenses were deducted or should it be on profit? The question was never whether employees would be taxed, but whether their employers would be given credit for employing them, paying their wages and giving benefits. Dewhurst was in favor of allowing employers to deduct the wages and benefits given, and then only assessing the tax on profits. In other words, he was against any “wage tax.”)

Jordan Fishman, US Businessman, on Ted Cruz, Appellant Lawyer

What kind of principles does it take to become the lawyer claiming that US laws don’t apply to international patent thieves *after* a jury has found the foreign company liable?

David Dewhurst, running for Texas Senator, has been running an ad about the choice by his opponent Ted Cruz to become the lawyer for a Chinese company that stole intellectual property from a US company owned by septuagenarian Jordan Fishman.

In a new youtube audio post, hear Mr. Fishman tell Matt Patrick, a Houston talk radio host, that witnesses stated under oath that the thieves believed that they would win because the American would either die or go broke before winning the case. (If you’re short on time, go about 6 minutes in for the meat of the story.)

Mr. Fishman is the owner of the company, Alpha Tire Systems, that successfully sued the Chinese-owned Shandong Linglong Tyre Company for copying blueprints and breaking the laws of the US. A Federal jury found in favor of Mr. Fishman and awarded him $26 million. Alpha had lost business, forcing them to cut staff from 25 to 5, and costing an estimated $19 million in lost sales after Linglong copied his blueprints and used the stolen information to manufacture and sell tires identical to the Alpha products.

Listen as Mr. Fishman tells us that he intends to survive, both in life and business, until he makes the thieves pay. He details the facts: that Ted Cruz chose to take on the case as “Attorney at Record” after the jury found the Chinese and Dubai companies liable. The Linglong appeals brief is here. The appeal claims that US patent law doesn’t count, since the theft took part outside of the US borders.

Mr. Cruz claims that he’s not so bad, since he is the “appellant,” not the “trial lawyer”. He also states that “this is what lawyers do,” and asserts that Shandong Linglong is a “private company” in China.Yes, it’s “private,” since no stock is “publicly” held.

What kind of principles does it take to become the lawyer claiming that US laws don’t apply to international patent thieves *after* a jury has found the foreign company liable?

More from a 2010 Sarasota Times news story about the case, here. Politifact calls the story “Mostly true,” the only dispute is between using “guilty” vs. “liable.” And “Tire Business” reports on Mr. Fishman’s happiness two years ago, when he thought his troubles were over.

David Dewhurst, Citizen Legislator for Texas Senator

David Dewhurst is a strong Texas Conservative,a classic “citizen legislator,” who has only been in politics for about dozen years. He ran for office for the first time when he was in his 50’s, winning his race for Land Commissioner in 1998 before his election to Lieutenant Governor in 2002.

Last fall, I wanted Dewhurst to become Governor when Governor Rick Perry went to the White House, so I donated to Ted Cruz. From day one, I hated the way the Cruz team lied about Dewhurst and his record. I complained to the staff and Cruz at the Texas Republican Women convention in November and was in turn attacked by the staffers.

Dewhurst is proven and much more the self-made man than Cruz claims to be:

  • Dewhurst  was born in Houston, Texas; Cruz in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. (Has Cruz denounced any dual citizenship?)
  • Dewhurst’s father fought the Nazis for the US and stuck it out for 85 bomber missions; Cruz’ father fought Batista with Castro, somehow leaving Cuba before the end of the revolution to attend the University of Texas. (Dewhurst has donated to the memorial at Utah Beach in honor of his father, who was killed by a drunk driver after he returned to Houston  when David was only 3.)
  •  Both grew up in the Houston area, but Dewhurst attended Lamar High School, while Cruz attended private schools in Katy.
  • Both joined the debate teams in high school, but Dewhurst did it in an attempt to overcome his stuttering.
  • Dewhurst played basketball for Arizona to put himself through college; Cruz went to Princeton and Harvard.
  • Dewhurst proved himself in the Air Force and then the CIA; Cruz founded the Latino Law Review at Harvard and went to work for government agencies.
  • Dewhurst is a private businessman who built his company from scratch, surviving the slump in the ’80’s, and has succeeded outside of politics; Cruz has always been an employee and never ran a business.
  • Dewhurst is 65 years old, and will be naturally “term limited.” Cruz is 42 and could potentially be in the Senate over 30 years.

Other than his abrasive manner and early unwise decision to tear down a good man using poor ethics, Cruz is an unknown. All we know for sure is that he is capable of doing what he’s assigned to do. He defended the laws that Dewhurst managed to pass in a contentious Texas Senate. In his current job, he accepted the assignment to defend a Chinese conglomerate’s patent infringement in lawsuit by an US citizen whose technology was stolen out from under him.

In contrast, as pro-life and medical ethics activist in Texas, I’ve watched Lt. Governor Dewhurst work in Austin. I’ve seen him bring together opposing factions to hammer out Bills – at least once he called us all together in his office the last day a Bill could come up for a vote, ensuring that we left with an agreement.

Every criticism of Dewhurst is based on half-truths and lies. He didn’t make it on “daddy’s money.” He didn’t use illegal or unethical tactics to pass last year’s budget Bill.  He hasn’t increased spending in Texas since 2002. For one thing, the way that Texas measures the debt changed after the 2001 session by a popular vote for a Constitutional amendment. Our State has maintained a strong fiscal position in spite of Federal Courts forcing increased Medicaid spending, “Robin Hood” education spending, and about 1000 new immigrants a day moving in from the rest of the Nation.

Texas’ 82nd Legislature passed the Sonogram Bill, the Voter ID Bill, denied illegal aliens a driver’s license and ensured that Texas law allows deportation of illegal alien criminals after they serve their time. Yes, spending was doubled on border security and maintained at previous spending on K-12 education, but spending was cut in other places. The Rainy Day Fund was protected so that it will be available if needed to cover Medicaid and education spending at the end of this budget cycle.

For a current look at David Dewhurst’s leadership, read the “Interim Charges” to Texas State Senators, available at the Lieutenant Governor’s website.

@bnuckols tweets

Click here to get your “Choose Life” license plate

Rick Perry RickPAC

Yes, I'm still for Governor Perry!


What to read around here