Ted Cruz Takes Iowa

by Jack

Was anyone crushed that Ted Cruz won in Iowa? Not me either. It was between Marco and Ted, and Ted was my first choice. Hope you saw his victory speech, it was really inspiring. Whatever else you may think of Ted, you can’t deny the man is a master at communicating and motivating, he is brilliant!

ted-cruzIt kind of restores my faith that Iowan’s were able to separate the showman (Trump) from the substance and stability (Cruz).

When the time came to cast a vote, they did the intelligent and thoughtful thing and of course Cruz received a substantial margin of the total vote.

On the other hand Hillary and Bernie split the leftwing vote right down the middle.

What cracks me up about democrat voters is this, when they were asked what they liked about Hillary, the answered was:  Her experience, her accomplishments in office, and her warm temperament and/or demeanor.   (Choke)  I grant you she holds up well under cross examination, but that doesn’t make her good, just sly.  She’s had a lot of experience getting into trouble on the job and then talking her way out it.  Next, what accomplishments? Seriously.  What has she ever accomplished? Please name it.  As for her personal conduct or demeanor, well, its shocking.  She treats people in the Secret Service like dirt. She’s been rude and degrading to many of her helpers over the years.  Outwardly she smiles for the public and pretends she’s a kindly person and if that does it for you, then she’s your girl.    But, they don’t call her helicopter “Broomstick One” for nothing.  I think democrats are in denial again.  The woman is mean.  She’s as phony as a 3 dollar bill and she’s a proven phony and liar.  Who wants that back in the White House?  And the left’s alternative is to vote for a full on socialist?  Wow, that’s some choice. The democratic party has sunk to new lows, you can vote for an untrustworthy liar or commie socialist, that’s great, eh?

Obviously, I think Ted Cruz would make a good president.  He is energetic, inspiring, incredibly well educated and extremely well spoken.  He’s said nothing that I can find offensive to my ethics or politics.  Although, I’m sure if dems look hard enough there is that off the cuff remark made somewhere during his life, maybe in the 2nd grade, that they will use against him in the general election.hillary-clinton-benghazi-600x337

Inside the GOP, Cruz’ colleagues in the Senate are a problem.  They don’t care much for him, he’s not played ball.  And given that, they probably won’t do a thing to help him get elected. But, considering their low performance, these old gas-bags aren’t much of an asset anyway.  The public knows what they are and their ratings reflect it.   So, who cares what they think? Ted Cruz is a man apart, a guy who stands alone if he needs too. He reflects the principle written but not practiced by the GOP. The voters know that and they love him for it. He’s a fresh break from the old gang that does nothing but cost us money. Those old curmudgeons in the Senate ought to take a lesson from Ted, because their future could depend on it and it should. They have blocked so many meaningful reform bills presented by the House you would think the Senate is controlled by democrats! The GOP has 54 seats in the Senate, the democrats hold 44. What have they done with it? What the @#$% is wrong with these old career politicians? The Senate and House can’t even pass a proper budget, control the border, reign in the IRS, fix the VA, jump start the economy, undue Un-Constitutional executive orders, so I wonder why keep them around? What are they good for besides drawing a fat paycheck?

Good going Ted Cruz, I hope you take New Hampshire and South Carolina next!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Ted Cruz Takes Iowa

  1. Libby says:

    Second grade, nothing. If he gets the nomination, the H-PACs will spend millions broadcasting every short-sighted, venal stupidity he uttered in courting the Trumpsters.

    And, Jack, statistically, if not emotionally, the US is coming up on full employment. The economy is, in fact, running again. But you won’t be happy til another Republican administration flushes it.

  2. Tina says:

    Dream on Libby. Your party is running a couple of old grey haired radicals. We’ve had quite enough of that redistribution and phony compassion crap.

    “Coming on full employment” is a nice sound bite and might fool a few people but it hardly reflects the miserable Obama seven year economy…the worst economy since the Great Depression. It also doesn’t reflect the continuing stagnant wages, the part time jobs, the stagnation in manufacturing, corporations fleeing overseas to avoid oppressive regulation and taxation, energy companies run out of business through a tyrannical EPA, an absolute debacle in the healthcare sector, a growing poverty sector, and a near doubling of the debt!

    Whatever will you do, Libby, when the republican wins and within a couple of years the economy is roaring once again. Whatever you have to say will be as phony as your ignorant assessments on the Obama economy.

    Republicans didn’t flush the economy and you know it. Big phony!

    • Chris says:

      Tina, you talk as if it’s still 2010. Almost nothing you said is true in 2016.

      “the worst economy since the Great Depression.”

      No, the worst economy since the Great Depression occurred between 2009 and 2011, and was the result of policies put in place by both parties, as well as international unpredictabilities, years (decades, really) before Obama took office. But that’s over now.

      “It also doesn’t reflect the continuing stagnant wages,”

      You do not want to raise wages.

      “the part time jobs,”

      Part time jobs as a percentage of all jobs created have fallen over the past few years.

      “the stagnation in manufacturing,”

      This phenomenon is decades in the making, and has nothing to do with Obama.

      “corporations fleeing overseas to avoid oppressive regulation and taxation,”

      Corporate tax rates are at record lows, and U.S. corporations pay some of the world’s lowest effective tax rates.

      “an absolute debacle in the healthcare sector,”

      Over ten million people who did not have insurance now do because of Obamacare.

      “a growing poverty sector,”

      Again, you’re against raising wages, so please don’t pretend to care about this.

      “and a near doubling of the debt!”

      I guess you wish he had tripled it, like Reagan did.

      (And if you can tell me how ANY of the problems you mentioned above could be solved WITHOUT adding to the debt, I’ll mail you a shiny nickel.

      • Tina says:

        Chris I’ve explained ’til I’m blue in the face what will make the economy robust. If you don’t get it yet you’re just being pig headed.

        The recession ended in Spring of 2009…Obama has had all of this time to enact policies that create a robust economy. There are examples of those policies working under both democrat and republican presidents. Obama chose not to adopt any of them. In fact he chose to do the opposite in order to fundamentally transform America. An average growth rate of 2%-2.5% is pathetic but it puts Americans more in line with third world countries. Lefties work to make everyone the same…miserable (except the very wealthy elites) .

        Read this to find out where Bernie’s top marginal rates would lead…and how cutting tax rats raises revenue (scroll down for chart).

        One of the things you on the left screamed about repeatedly at the end of Bush’s term was the $9.7 trillion he left in debt. Obama himself bashed Bush when he ran for president issuing a sanctimonious screed that it was “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” to have added $4 trillion to the debt.

        It is disingenuous and phony for you to not be equally upset over Obama’s $19trillion in debt…a nine trillion and rising increase. Regarding Reagan, his major fault was trusting that Tip O’ Neill would keep his word and cut $3 in the budget for every dollar of tax increase he agreed to. When Reagan was president liberals had been in charge for most of 40 years…the House is where spending originates. Their social programs started the debt explosion.

        The debt, as I’ve explained, is driven mostly by social programs the government has to borrow to pay for. Unless those programs are reformed or eliminated the debt will continue to grow. The government also spends too much and it manages our money very poorly. There’s a lot of fraud, waste, and expensive “make work” bureaucracy in addition to pork and special interest spending. Our government needs to be held accountable. You are not helping to make them either “responsible” or “patriotic” in this regard.

        And no, nimrod, I don’t want government forced wage hikes. That works against growth. Strong growth and expansion in the economy will lead to a more abundant work force and better paying jobs.

        More people have healthcare but they’re mostly on a Medicaid program OR they’ve been thrown in an Obamacare “metal” plan with a very high deductible that prevents them from getting care. Insurance is useless if you can;t afford the deductible. But as is usual with the left, symbolic gesture outweighs substantive reform.

        That nickle you so smugly hold out to me was contributed to you by the taxpayers. It would be nice if you gave a damn about a few more of them actually having a job!

        A few corportations pay a lower (effetive) tax rate. Not all can. Those that do can because the tax code allows them to do it legally. The applied corporate tax rate IS still higher than any other country. You are an idiot if you don’t understand that freedom from burdensome taxes will help to create jobs for Americans, tax revenues for government, and a ROBUST economy instead of the sluggish economy we’ve suffered for seven long years.

  3. Libby says:

    Are we supposed to have forgotten what the O-man inherited? We have not.

  4. Chris says:

    Jack, Hilary Clinton has a number of diplomatic accomplishments, and that’s probably her strongest area. A summary from my friend Barry at Alas, a Blog:

    ” Hillary Clinton has a long history of significant diplomatic accomplishments, Clinton was instrumental in changing US policy towards Burma from one of isolation and sanctions to one of active engagement, which arguably played a major part in the military government allowing the transition to representative government to actually happen (so far). As Obama’s Secretary of State, Clinton is responsible for the successes of the administrations work on the loose nukes issue, making the world much safer. As first lady, Clinton took a large role in the negotiations with China over MFN status, and is probably still the most respected American politician in China today. Relations with China will be very important for the next President.”


    I don’t find Clinton particularly trustworthy or ethical, and the email scandal worries me. I wouldn’t want her to be president if there were anyone on either side of the aisle I found preferable, and I will probably vote third party since we live in California, which will certainly go Democrat (same reason I voted third party in 2012). But there is no one better, IMO.

    I would vote for a democratic socialist (if it’s good enough or MLK Jr. and George Orwell, it’s good enough for me) if I thought one could actually get anything done, but that will be impossible in our current climate. Congress won’t exactly be eager to negotiate with Clinton, but she’s a game player; Bernie has not shown any leadership qualities that I can see. I can’t even take him seriously when he opens his mouth; not because of what he says, but how he says it. Clinton will make a much better leader than Sanders even if I prefer some (though certainly not all) of Sanders’ ideas.

    Cruz has said plenty of offensive things on the gay issue–he vocally supported Kim Davis, because he doesn’t understand the law nearly as well as his education would indicate, and he has pretty blatant theocratic tendencies. Liberals won’t have to look far to find offensive statements, but I’m still glad he won this primary as a Trump win would have me packing my bags. Cruz at least has an actual conservative ideology and I’d rather compete against that than a candidate bereft of ideas who gets by on sheer volume.

  5. Tina says:

    The O-man inherited the result of unsound policies Democrats put in place.

    Democrats try to do good but they never consider the unintended consequences of their meddling. The housing crisis was the result of easing lending regulations to a ridiculous degree which in turn resulted in investor exuberance. Anyone could get a loan for no money down even with poor credit. Flipping houses became a money making scheme as buyers drove housing prices skyward. A housing bubble was created. At the same time good old Fannie and Freddie were buying up bundled loans thinking they’d make a pile of cash in the deal. But the bundles were toxic and when the bubble burst the ensuing debt crisis ricocheted around the world.

    Conservatives would never be in favor of such irresponsible lending regulations. Warnings were issued and repeatedly ignored.

    The recession Obama inherited was no worse than the recession Reagan inherited after Carter, or the recession Clinton inherited after Bush I, or the recession Bush II inherited after the dot.com bubble under Clinton. Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II all enacted tax policies that got the economy rolling again. (Clinton had to be pushed to get it done; the great economy you all claim was Bill Clinton’s was actually the result of Newt Gingrich’s policies)

    You liberals never fail to steal credit from others and you never fail to pass the buck for your failures. And you’re such phonies. You jump out in front to cover your a$$es with a slogan like “the worst recession since the Great Depression.” It’s repeated ad nauseam. The slogan has a grain of truth in it but it is not the truth. The truth is it was just one of “the worst” and the truth is Obama was too busy transforming America to do what all of his predecessors knew would worked and did…cut taxes, cut onerous regulations and curb spending.

    Wall Street companies do not represent the entire economy. The people, pursuing happiness, are the big engine that drives our economy. According to their own need and desires they save, invest, innovate, create, and spend. Small to medium businesses are the backbone of America. They hire the majority of the people. These businesses have been hurt terribly under Obama which is why the middle class is shrinking. The economy works when people keep more of what they earn and make their own choices about how their money will be spent.

    Under liberal policies the rich get richer and the number of poor expands. Under conservative policies the rich still get richer but the rest of us have an opportunity to grow richer too.

    Congrats! Obama will pass on both a stinking economy and a foreign policy mess to the next president..just as he intended! America didn’t need fundamental transformation. America needed to get back to the fundamentals that made the nation work.

  6. Chris says:

    Tina: “The recession Obama inherited was no worse than the recession Reagan inherited after Carter, or the recession Clinton inherited after Bush I, or the recession Bush II inherited after the dot.com bubble under Clinton.”

    You really could have stopped here, and written nothing else, as this is enough to show everyone that you have no idea what you’re talking about, and no amount of rebuttal to your arguments will be able to sway you from your unreasonable positions. This is a ridiculous assertion, agreed with by exactly zero economists, and only a blinkered partisan could believe it. (But then, you were also willing to believe that the unemployment rate was higher that the rate of Americans not in the labor force, so I don’t know why I bother to engage you on economic discussions at all. You’re completely unprepared for them, but you think you’re an expert.

  7. Tina says:

    First I take exception to Obama tying what he inherited to the depression. Politifact looked at Obama’s claim in 2013:

    “Well, let’s think about where we were five years ago. The economy was on the verge of a great depression. In some ways, actually, the economic data and the collapse of the economy was worse than what happened in the 1930s. And we came in, stabilized the situation.”


    Obama said the economy was worse “in some ways” — a standard that strikes us as especially vague, and thus difficult to fact-check.

    The White House spurned three attempts by PolitiFact to supply data backing up Obama’s claim. But we pored over old economic data and interviewed economists and historians familiar with both periods. We found some evidence both for and against the idea that the economy Obama inherited was worse than the one during the Great Depression.

    Politifact found that stabilization occurred in part with the steps Bush took before Obama took over:

    Why did the Great Recession end up being so much milder? Part of it, economists say, has to do with the stabilizing effects of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (which was initially signed by President George W. Bush), the actions of the Federal Reserve Board under chairman Ben Bernanke, and the policies pursued by foreign governments and central banks.

    Obama deserves some credit but as CATO advised, “Even Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, gives Obama some credit, though a bit backhandedly. Under Obama, he said, ‘government policy has been misguided, but not nearly as bad as it was during the 1930s. That’s why it’s silly for Obama to say, in any way, that today’s economy is worse.'”

    Now for economists that have compared Obama’s economy to Reagan’s.

    McClatchy compares the two recessions and recovery. In it they confirm my position: “A number of the conservative economists we spoke to believe that the high inflation of the early 1980s made Reagan’s challenge worse.”

    Politifact concluded Obama’s recession was worse but with differing views the significance in the difference can’t be so dramatic as to make Obama’s claim anything more than a political ploy. No two recessions are the same. The recession is less important than what is done about it. Obama’s response has been abysmal in terms of recovery and sustained robust growth.

    CATO: “Both President Reagan and President Obama inherited an economy suffering from a year of no growth, along with rising unemployment. (The numbers are almost identical.) But Mr. Reagan faced a far direr situation in that inflation was in the double digits and the prime interest rate was at 20 percent. In contrast, Mr. Obama inherited an economy in which inflation was falling (in fact, inflation has been close to zero for this year) and interest rates were very low.

    A situation in which the number of jobs available is falling is bad enough, but if inflation is also destroying purchasing power, the misery is compounded. In the 1960s, economist Arthur M. Okun created the Misery Index by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate. In the 1976 presidential race, Jimmy Carter frequently attacked President Ford for allowing the Misery Index to reach 13.57, even though it was lower when Mr. Ford left office than what he had inherited from the Nixon years. Ironically, four years later, when President Carter was running against Ronald Reagan, the Misery Index reached a record high of 21.98. Mr. Carter had no defense and lost the election. The Misery Index dropped by more than 10 points during the Reagan presidency, the single largest improvement during any president’s tenure in the last half-century.”

    As I said, the claim is political and what matters most to the people is what was done about it. Since the recession ended Obama’s policies have created growth in most quarters at such a sluggish pace that the people have suffered greatly. In all of that time no one has challenged him or asked (demanded) that he change policies. That too is political. You buy into the political game rather than using your noodle to find out why. You also refuse to tell the truth about the state of our economy. What this buys you I’m not sure…certainly not a future worth having if we elect Bernie or Hillary and continue down the same rotting path.

  8. Libby says:

    Right. Eight years of that “Democratic” eniquity: BushCo.

    Funny Girl. Very funny.

  9. Pie Guevara says:

    There are two aspects of this election cycle I think it is of interest to note. Democrats and the left love Trump and fear Cruz.

    What the left loves, core conservatives wince about: Trump’s obnoxious braggadocio, megalomaniacal conceit, silly, grandiose, ill-considered plans, and ungoverned mouth. The calculation is obvious — that no matter how unacceptable either Clinton or Sanders are to the general voting public, Trump will self-destruct. Here I tend to agree with the left as do many conservatives.

    Fear the left has for Cruz is exemplified perfectly in a Washington Post opinion piece Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president.

    The author is a self described “legal historian.” (Fair enough, just not a very good “legal historian.” His opinion, while craftily constructed, smacks of an argument of convenience to his political aims.)

    The most bald deception is that author cites the Naturalization Act of 1790 and then dances conveniently (stumbles) around a simple fact: The act clearly states, “”the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” The author is neither intimidated nor deterred by this clause and goes on to boldly declare, “the first Congress, however, had no such intent, as if he were some time-traveling mind reading wizard from Hogwart.

    This is “natural born” clause is no matter of an unintended consequence emerging from ill-considered wording like that resulting from 14th Amendment.

    That the author goes through such obvious omissions and contortions to impeach Cruz’s eligibility and a that prominent left-wing journal publishes it, demonstrates perfectly just how much the left fears Cruz.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Thanks Pie for the link. Anything the far left fears must be good.

    • Peggy says:

      Cruz is as eligible to run for president as millions of military “brats” born all over the world. If I’d been born a couple of months later I would have been born in Japan.

      Illinois election board rules Cruz is eligible for the presidency:

      “The Illinois Board of Elections on Monday said Republican candidate Ted Cruz is a natural-born citizen and is eligible to be president.

      The Texas senator was born in Calgary to an American mother and Cuban father, which primary rival Donald Trump has suggested might disqualify him from serving as commander in chief.

      But the board ruled that Cruz, who won the Iowa Republican caucuses on Monday, can stay on the ballot for the state’s primary election on March 15.
      “The candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth,” the board said in its ruling.

      The board distinguished between natural born and naturalized citizens, pointing out that Cruz “did not have to take any steps to go through a naturalization process at some point after birth.” The Constitution stipulates that a president must be a “natural born citizen.”

      “Further discussion on this issue is unnecessary,” the board added.

      A commission in New Hampshire in January also ruled that Cruz is eligible for that state’s Feb. 9 ballot.”


      Case closed! Can’t wait to see tRump have another hissy fit.

  10. dewster says:

    Ted lied on Caucus night and said Ben Carson left the race and his people should caucus for Ted? LOL These Politicians are so darn scummy.

    Tina they do not like Cruz because he is a snake. He got them to do his shutdown and then turned his back on them. He even turned his back on GW Bush. Cruz is not liked because they can not trust him. He is not a man of his word. That is the truth.

    Cruz even cheated a filibuster by reading Dr Suess.. he is a snake period.

  11. Peggy says:

    Why so many Iowa corn growers and ethanol producers voted FOR Cruz.

    How Cruz Crushed Ethanol:

    “‘There’s an Iowa way of doing this, and the rest of the candidates did it the Iowa way,” Majda Sarkic, a spokeswoman for the pro-ethanol group America’s Renewable Future, told National Review days before the Iowa caucuses. All of the candidates except Ted Cruz, that is. In a highly unusual move for a man who sought, and ultimately won, the support of Iowa caucus-goers, Cruz didn’t court, kowtow to, or bow down before King Corn. From the time they arrived in the Senate eyeing a presidential run three years ago, he and his advisers have known that his opposition to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which requires gasoline to contain a minimum level of ethanol, would cause him headaches in Iowa. But as early as the state’s agricultural summit last May, he signaled that he would play to win the state on his own terms.”


  12. Peggy says:

    Turns out Rubio’s team did the same thing Cruz’s team did after Carson announced he was going to Florida to get some clean clothes. Didn’t Carson know NH had cleaners and clothing stores?

    Where are the attacks against Rubio from the media, Carson and Trump?


  13. Peggy says:

    Another reason I’m voting for Cruz.

    Ted Cruz: I would fight to transfer federal land back to the states.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.