Seeing is believing, but not to a fool. Cruz believes, and sees what he wants to see. He’s gone off the deep end on this shutdown business. Have you ever been at a meeting when a motion failed for lack of a second? Normally that doesn’t happen. Someone will always give a guy a second just to avoid embarrassing him. When no one does, you look like a fool.
That’s what happened to Parson Cruz on the floor of the Senate yesterday. He made a motion to force a vote opposed by McConnell, and it died for lack of a second. The rage voters will not hold this against him. He’s fighting the good fight! Well, I’m just as enraged as the next guy, but I want people representing me who have some idea of what they’re doing. The Parson is a grandstanding showboat, who may have one ally in the Senate, Utah’s Mike Lee. Even Lee wouldn’t back him.
It’s been said that one man with courage is a majority. Bullshit. One man shows don’t work in politics. If you are all alone in a group of 100, you are a political disaster. This will be lost on rage voters, who will probably rally to the Parson when Trump fades. He’s a fighter! And a loser. I think it’s clear that Cruz has the most potential to make it into the final round as the hard core insurgent candidate. Either Rubio or Kasich, or both, will be there to meet him. This won’t happen for five months, and, of course, may not happen at all. But the Parson’s performance in the Senate, not on the campaign trail, may do him in. McConnell, and just about every other member of the Senate, would love to knock him on his ass, and these guys know how the game is played. A tiny example: Cruz was scheduled to speak to ALEC in San Diego in July. At the last minute McConnell scheduled a vote that he couldn’t miss, so he cancelled. Look for Mischievous Mitch to come up with ingenious ways to derail the Cruz campaign.
Rage candidates don’t win elections, at least not for President. The Gipper always ran with a smile on his face. When the Parson switches to positive, he’s unconvincing, smarmy. There’s something offputting about this guy, which is why he’s called the Parson. His sincerity is phony.
In my megalomaniac moments I take credit for the current popularity of the term “authenticity” among the punditry. Months ago, describing and excusing a Kasich shortcoming, I said that it had the advantage of lending him authenticity. Ever since I’ve been seeing this word everywhere. It explains Hillary’s slide, Biden’s appeal etc. etc. Now the numbers boys at 538 have weighed in. Authenticity is unimportant because it “doesn’t fit into a regression model” and is subject to “attribution error.” What a crock. All we mean when we say authentic is not phony. But phoniness is not subject to mathematical analysis, so we should pay no attention. Really? The time to listen to the numbers boys is far in the future. In politics and poker you play the man, not the cards.
The main reason I’m down on the Parson is his ambivalence on Article V, which he developed when running an insurgent primary campaign in Texas, in order to appease the Birchers et al. I want Rubio or Kasich, because I think they put us over the top. I’m hoping that the field winnows after the SEC primary on March 1st, and the Florida showdown on March 15th. If Rubio and Kasich are both still standing — and I bet they are — and they let Bart Davis in Idaho know that they want an Article V BBA, he might relent if one of them is probably the next President. The same message, a little later, would need to go to Hugh Leatherman in South Carolina and Andy Biggs in Arizona. How do you say no to the next President of the United States?
Politically I’m closer in my politics to Cruz than any of the others. I’m pretty hard core. And everybody’s wrong about something, and maybe I’m wrong about him. I hope I am, because he cannot be counted out. There’s a lot of rage out there, and it’s justified. Immigration is a very hot potato. If he learns how to channel it in a positive direction he’d be dangerous.
I’ll take him seriously when he stops listening to Mark “I am so pissed off” Levin. Which raises an interesting question. Levin fancies himself the godfather of the Convention of States. I don’t listen to him very often, but I’ve heard him give great soliloquies on Article V. He gets it.
Why hasn’t he gotten his buddy the Parson to see the light on Article V?
reaganproject.com 