Ted Cruz: No, I won’t hold up the Senate bill to end the shutdown

posted at 2:41 pm on October 16, 2013 by Allahpundit

Remember, Senate rules require 30 hours of debate on a bill unless all 100 members consent to waiving them. If Cruz (or Lee or Rand Paul) withheld his consent, boom — we hit the debt ceiling tomorrow and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man appears in the streets of New York to wreak havoc. Would Cruz, true to his “don’t blink” ethos, hold out to the bitter end? I thought there was a 99 percent chance that he wouldn’t, but man oh man, that one percent. Joshua Green imagines:

You may be thinking to yourself, “Why on earth would he keep this up?!” The answer is simple: Cruz seeks to be the purest conservative in the 2016 field, and fighting the good fight till the bitter end would lend a romantic flourish to his C.V., at least in the eyes of the Tea Party types who vote faithfully in GOP primaries. It’s no accident that he won last weekend’s Value Voters Summit Presidential Straw Poll going away. Cruz also needs to be able to explain away the humiliating debacle of the Republican collapse he precipitated, and here, too, fighting on would probably help him. In my talks with Cruz allies over the last couple of days, a clear theme emerged: Republicans were losing because those RINOs in the Senate wouldn’t man up and fight. To pin this defeat on others, Cruz will have to do everything he can to heighten this distinction.

The problem with that theory is that GOP nominee Ted Cruz, having swept to victory on the backs of his tea-party supporters, would then need to figure out how to win a general election, and being known as the guy who singlehandedly forced a technical default when literally everyone else was ready to proceed would be … unhelpful to that effort. Plus, like it or not, Cruz will need to build bridges with wealthy Republican donors before 2016, at least to the point where they’re not clamoring to fund someone who can stop him. (Although maybe that’s inevitable.) Making sure that he doesn’t tank the market to make a rhetorical point when there’s now zero chance of achieving any major ObamaCare concessions is a prerequisite. Besides, hasn’t he already positioned himself as “the purest conservative in the 2016 field” after all this? The policy goal of defunding O-Care was always quixotic but the political benefits of pounding the table against the law, staging a 21-hour speech against it, and backing the first major government shutdown in nearly 20 years to protest it are obvious. Whether he’s now the “purest” conservative in the field, he’s certainly the most famously populist conservative. Which, I think, was his main goal on the political side of this. Raising awareness about ObamaCare’s defects was important and salutary, but re-framing the RINO/conservative divide as more of an elitist/populist divide (as he does in the clip below) is what will define his personal brand.

One question, though. Does Cruz’s refusal to delay the vote mean that he too thinks hitting the debt ceiling would be a very bad (even catastrophic) thing? If not then he has nothing to lose by delaying another day or two; it would, as Green says, show his willingness to fight the good fight until the bitter end. But if it’s true that he fears hitting the ceiling, he’s in the unusual position of being on the wrong side of tea-party opinion:

pe

A clear majority — 52 percent — of those who agree with the tea party say it’s unnecessary to raise the debt limit at all. Something to bear in mind if/when Boehner ends up stepping down before the midterms and the caucus is forced to decide whether to elect a centrist or conservative as his successor.

Exit question: Is this good for Rand Paul or bad?

Righties might not like it, but moderate conservatives who think Christie’s too squishy and Cruz too extreme will like it a lot.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Plus, like it or not, Cruz will need to build bridges with wealthy Republican donors before 2016, at least to the point where they’re not clamoring to fund someone who can stop him. (Although maybe that’s inevitable.)

Sorry AP. I believe you are wrong on this. Cruz came to a NY GOP function in NYC. And after he spoke, wealthy donors were opening their wallets and writing big checks, much to the surprise of the NYGOP. Cruz may very well be our Obama.

monalisa on October 16, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Have you missed the park closings? Obama would -make sure- to “lose” the debt payments if given the opportunity.

ebrown2

Meaningless park closings and defaulting on the debt which could have global implications are two vastly different things. And that’s why he would have caved had republicans stood their ground. But instead, they tell him right out of the gate that they have no intention of standing their ground…every….damn….time.

xblade on October 16, 2013 at 3:31 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on October 16, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Hmmm, I wonder who I have him confused with? I am changing my opinion, he’ll vote with Cruz.

Cindy Munford on October 16, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Redford on October 16, 2013 at 3:30 PM

His political career isn’t over. The man is doing what we in Texas elected him to do.

annoyinglittletwerp on October 16, 2013 at 3:31 PM

He’ll be voting NO against this compromise. So what’s the big deal?

He’ll be remembered as the last guy standing on the day the ObamaCare and Single Payer war was lost … forever.

And that’s not a bad way to be remembered.

HondaV65 on October 16, 2013 at 3:09 PM

No, Cruz never had any intentions of running for president. Cruz is smart. He knows his political career is over; however, book deals, speaking engagements’ stock went through the roof. Paul on the other hand is running

Redford on October 16, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Cruz is pounding the snot out of the right side of the Overton Window. And for that, we should all (even those who don’t agree with him) salute him.

besser tot als rot on October 16, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Except when you can’t borrow any more money to run the Government and the give-aways. And then interest rates go up on what you already have borrowed. Than all you can do is print money.

oldroy on October 16, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Why do you think I said that this is just the beginning of “cashing out” the consequences of a “Free Candy” mentality? Inflation is just one of the “fun” things we can look forward to in the future.

ebrown2 on October 16, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Sad to see that Cruz is another squishy RINO.

Pablo Honey on October 16, 2013 at 2:57 PM

F’n RINO!!!!! Didn’t take long for Cruz to CAVE, did it?

NoStoppingUs on October 16, 2013 at 3:17 PM

that’s some funny stuff. I bet republicans agree that he is a RINO.

technically..he is.

Republicans want the tea party to take a hike (quoting Rush here).

To me, Cruz looks like a wet p-u-s-s-y….all the middle age men with no college degree love him even more now! LOL.

P.S. He knew this was never going to happen. He knew it!!! Open your danm eyes!!

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on October 16, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Cruz is pounding the snot out of the right side of the Overton Window. And for that, we should all (even those who don’t agree with him) salute him.

besser tot als rot on October 16, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Even better said than Britt Hume.

de rigueur on October 16, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Have you missed the park closings? Obama would -make sure- to “lose” the debt payments if given the opportunity.

ebrown2

Meaningless park closings and defaulting on the debt which could have global implications are two vastly different things. And that’s why he would have caved had republicans stood their ground. But instead, they tell him right out of the gate that they have no intention of standing their ground…every….damn….time.

xblade on October 16, 2013 at 3:31 PM

(Sigh) Only if the R-Establishment continually held his feet to the fire, which is almost as likely as the sun rising in the West.

ebrown2 on October 16, 2013 at 3:34 PM

No, Cruz never had any intentions of running for president. Cruz is smart. He knows his political career is over; however, book deals, speaking engagements’ stock went through the roof. Paul on the other hand is running

Redford on October 16, 2013 at 3:30 PM

He has just begun.

Thank you Sens Cruz/Lee, for exposing the obama-azs-kissing RINO. They are more despicable than the Utopian Ds.

If amnesty passes Pelosi will/should be speaker again. She will have earned it.

Too bad for all your kids. YOU RINOs and Ds will have destroyed their future and their everything.

Stupid forward!

Schadenfreude on October 16, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Ted Cruz has moved the Overton Window so much, so quickly that one year ago, people were talking about Rand Paul as an insane right-wing ideologue and now, they’re praying for Rand Paul to be a compromise savior. That’s a pretty impressive feat.

besser tot als rot on October 16, 2013 at 3:34 PM

To me, Cruz looks like a wet p-u-s-s-y….

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on October 16, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Bet everything does. Seek help.

de rigueur on October 16, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Hey, I saw a pretty good Rick Perry ad here in Virginia last night.

Cindy Munford on October 16, 2013 at 3:36 PM

No, Cruz never had any intentions of running for president. Cruz is smart. He knows his political career is over; however, book deals, speaking engagements’ stock went through the roof. Paul on the other hand is running

Redford on October 16, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Cruz’s career isn’t over unless he wants it to be.

His constituents (I am one) love the man. We admire and respect what he’s done.

So much so that there’s a serious possibility that we might throw the backstabbing John Cornyn out of his seat and send *another* Ted Cruz to DC to stand beside the first one, who will be re-elected with more votes than he received last time.

God willing, we’ll do just that.

Midas on October 16, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Game over.

Barky won because he convincingly demonstrated that he was quite prepared to shoot the hostage. For real.

If the little EBT tickle the other day didn’t get your attention, you might want to consider the unspoken import of this new USDA memo:

“understanding the operational issues and constraints that States face, and in the interest of preserving maximum flexibility, we are directing States to hold their November issuance files and delay transmission to State electronic benefit transfer (EBT) vendors until further notice.”

Add that to the display of utter disdain for our military, veterans, and their memorials by the jumped-up NPS, the ongoing sub-rosa putsch of high-ranking military personnel, and the possibilities implicit in the upcoming GRIDEX II “test” of the national power grid, and the eloquent “Chicago Way” thuggery of the WH, and you have a rather unsubtly-veiled threat.

There are no more checks and balances. Laws are created or ignored by the executive regardless of Congress, and there is no longer a budget or a limit. The transformation of America is pretty much done, except that very few have noticed yet. Amnesty is pretty much just a gimme at this point.

bofh on October 16, 2013 at 3:36 PM

If Cruz (or Lee or Rand Paul) withheld his consent, boom — we hit the debt ceiling tomorrow and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man appears in the streets of New York to wreak havoc.

Why would you think of the most harmless thing…something that could never, ever possibly destroy us?

Myron Falwell on October 16, 2013 at 3:37 PM

a wet p-u-s-s-y
Can.I.be.in.the.middle on October 16, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Bmore on October 16, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Sorry, bad formatting. Allow me to correct.

a wet p-u-s-s-y
Can.I.be.in.the.middle on October 16, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Bmore on October 16, 2013 at 3:38 PM

To me, Cruz looks like a wet p-u-s-s-y….

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on October 16, 2013 at 3:33 PM

This is the second thread you have slipped that in. Having a little obsession and envy over something you can’ get?

melle1228 on October 16, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Cindy Munford on October 16, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Yeah-he’s been ‘recruiting’.

annoyinglittletwerp on October 16, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Bmore, if I wanted to repost that for effect, would you advise formatting it like this:

Sorry, bad formatting. Allow me to correct.

a wet p-u-s-s-y
Can.I.be.in.the.middle on October 16, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Bmore on October 16, 2013 at 3:38 PM

… like this:

Sorry, bad formatting. Allow me to correct.

a wet p-u-s-s-y
Can.I.be.in.the.middle on October 16, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Bmore on October 16, 2013 at 3:38 PM

… or like this?

Sorry, bad formatting. Allow me to correct.

a wet p-u-s-s-y
Can.I.be.in.the.middle on October 16, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Bmore on October 16, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Midas on October 16, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Midas on October 16, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Just remember Midas to post it every single time you see him. ; )

Bmore on October 16, 2013 at 3:45 PM

From Ace of Spades:

Brit Hume: The Tea Party Forced a Major Fight on the Budget and ObamaCare Precisely Because The Establishment Didn’t

Can’t argue with any of this.

As you know, I go back and forth between siding with the Tea Party and the Establishment. Ask me three times in a week, and you might get three different answers.

But while I do think the Tea Party is sometimes wrongheaded in its theory of negotiation — that staking out the most maximalist position leads, more or less inevitably, to a better political resolution for the side staking it out — I do fault the Establishment for not re-calibrating its politics and realizing, The base is serious about these things.

I do get tired of establishment-leaning analysts and amateur pundits telling me that I don’t understand the easiest pathway to electoral success. Of course I understand the easiest pathway to electoral success — it’s dead simple.

The easiest pathway to electoral success, for someone on the right, is to stake out a position that is 1% more to the left of one’s Democratic opponent. (The easiest pathway to electoral success for someone on the left is to stake out a position 1% more to the right than one’s political opponent.) This gives one the maximum number of potential voters.

But potential voters are not necessarily actual voters, not if a politics seems uninspiring or pointless.

I do know the easiest pathway to electoral success — but I, and many other people, have decided, for various reasons, that the easiest pathway is no longer acceptable, because it yields so few rewards at the governance phase

melle1228 on October 16, 2013 at 3:46 PM

P.S. Midas, you don’t have to include my nom along side it. Lolz! ; )

Bmore on October 16, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Cruz is building an incredible groundswell of popular support across real America with real Americans….

could he beat Reagan’s record of 49 states in 2016?

Pablo Honey on October 16, 2013 at 3:46 PM

But Ted Cruz doesn’t *have* an audience anymore. Rand Paul does, but not Cruz.

libfreeordie

For someone with no audience, he sure is causing a lot of angst for the democrats in both parties.

Cruz is smart. He knows his political career is over;

Redford

Yeah, those Texans will never re-elect him. They hate it when someone fights for America and what’s right. He’s a one-termer for sure.

Pfft.

xblade on October 16, 2013 at 3:47 PM

John Cornyn is running ads in Texas taunting his conservatism. What a fraud! When it got tough in DC, Cornyn lined up with the establishment and not with his constituents. Go Cruz!!!!!!

mobydutch on October 16, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Cruz is a blue-chip political talent, one of the best articulators of the conservative cause in the last twenty years.

I think the Cruz/Lee defund strategy was half-baked, but I still love the fight they put on and I am impressed they got as far as they did in forcing a shut down.

Cruz needs to learn from this, but he’ll be back and I expect there will be many days in the future when even the RINOs will be glad he’s on their side.

Robert_Paulson on October 16, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Hey, what is the name of our troll who name starts with a “v”?

Cindy Munford on October 16, 2013 at 3:48 PM

could he beat Reagan’s record of 49 states in 2016?

Pablo Honey on October 16, 2013 at 3:46 PM

How many states did Romney get, again? :)

Good Solid B-Plus on October 16, 2013 at 3:49 PM

one good place to start:

http://www.katrinaforcongress.com/

APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 16, 2013 at 3:50 PM

More from Ace:

The Democrat Party is far more responsive to constituent will. For example, when the Democrat electorate became radicalized and very, very left-leaning after the disputed election of 2000 (and then even more after 9/11 and the GOP victory of 2002), the Democrat Party quickly began adapting itself to the New Political Reality that their base was much more extreme and unwilling to compromise than it had been.

The media seems not to have noticed this, but the Democrat Party had its own Purge of the Center by the Wing — How about Joe Lieberman? Yeah, he got primaried out, didn’t he?
The primary-challenge-from-the-wing is supposedly a tool of extremists… except when the media’s own party, the Democrat Party, utilizes it. Then it’s just People Powered Politics (TM).

But while the Democrat Party did resist this radicalization, in the end it did become the Progressive Party, and it only took them 2-3 years to adapt themselves to this way of thinking.

Anyone hear anything from the centrist-talking Democrat Leadership Council anymore? No, you don’t. The Democrats purged most of its centrists, chiefly by staking out positions so far to the Left (such as voting for the monstrosity of ObamaCare) that all of its representatives from purple districts were kicked out of office in 2010.

The Republican Establishment is, as one might guess, conservative by temperament. It resists change, moreso than the the Democrat Establishment (which almost seemed eager to confess they were fully Men and Women of the Unreconstructed Left; they just needed an excuse to say so).

The only way this marriage can be saved — if it can be at all — is for the Establishment to stop fighting the Tea Party on everything, and instead begin plotting politically-savvy ways to forward the Tea Party’s way of thinking.

Simply calling them “wacko birds” is not going to do it, Guys.

The Tea Party tends to talk in maximalist and uncompromising terms. I do not think most Tea Partiers are actually completely maximalist and uncompromising; I believe many talk this way to increase their negotiating position vis-a-vis the establishment.

So I think it’s possible that there can be some kind of compromise reached here.

But that will require that the Establishment do some compromising of its own. And that will in turn require taking the Tea Party seriously, and not simply sneering at 20% of the population as “extreme” and “fringe” and “crazy” and “wacko bird” and “Hobbits.”

I think the Establishment knows more about politicking than the Tea Party. But they don’t know more about core beliefs than the Tea Party. Everyone is an absolute expert in his own core beliefs, after all.

So, if this marriage is to be saved, the Establishment must begin using its political savvy — if it has such — to advance important political goals favored by the base.

The base understands kabuki. They are not, as the Washington Post once slurred conservative voters, “poor, uneducated, and easily led.”

The Establishment may wish they were these things but they’re not.

They may not be experts on politicking and messaging, but they think they’re experts on What America Is and Must Be, and I’m inclined to to agree with them on that, to a large extent.

The GOP already has two huge opponents — the Democrat Party and the Democrat Media. It cannot add a third opponent to that list.

Political realities change, and so do political goals. The Tea Party has had it to the back of their teeth with small-government rhetoric. They do not want more small government rhetoric. They want smaller government.

And they would also like respect. Despite the Washington Post’s slur, I would like to point out that Tea Partiers are in fact wealthier and better-educated than the average American. It’s also quite clear that they are not-so-easily led at all.

They may be willing to be led, but they want to influence their leadership in turn.

Which is the way it used to be, all those years ago, in the years after America won its democratic republic in the Revolutionary War.

Yes, it’s easier for the political class if they can just call all the shots and not bother explaining themselves to mere Citizens.

And we did that for a long time. After Americans became jaded about democracy, people began tuning out of the process — not even bothering to vote, nevermind going to a Town Hall to engage in public discourse on American policy — and left politics, chiefly, to the politicians, for oh, about 100 years.

But that’s not the reality anymore. Don’t fight the new reality; embrace it. This is going to be a more participatory process whether elected officials want it to be or not. That participation will either take place before elections, in a friendly manner, or it will take place during primary season or even general election season, in a hostile manner.

melle1228 on October 16, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Exit question: Is this good for Rand Paul or bad?

It’s bad for Rand Paul that journalistic squeegee-man Dave Weigel is touting him. ::::::shudder::::::

Robert_Paulson on October 16, 2013 at 3:51 PM

If Cruz (or Lee or Rand Paul) withheld his consent, boom — we hit the debt ceiling tomorrow

The BIG LIE.

Statements by Treasury Secretary Lew:

May 20, 2013: claims the deadline is August 2,2013

a “debt issuance suspension period” will begin on Monday, May 20,2013, and last until August 2,2013, the last day that Congress is expected to be in session before Labor Day.

August 2, 2013: claims the deadline is October 11,2013

I have determined that a “debt issuance suspension period,” previously determined to last until August 2, 2013, will continue through October 11, 2013, the last day that Congress is expected to be in session before the Columbus Day recess.

October 1, 2013: claims the deadline is October 17, 2013

In May of this year, the U.S. government reached the statutory debt limit, and Treasury began taking certain extraordinary measures to be able to continue, on a temporary basis, to pay the nation’s bills. Today, I am writing to inform Congress that as of today Treasury has begun using the final extraordinary measures. There are no other legal and prudent options to extend the nation’s borrowing authority. The impact ofthese measures was incorporated into the forecast
that I shared with you last week, and Treasury continues to believe that extraordinary measures will be exhausted no later than October 17, 2013.

Each of those deadlines was/is FALSE.

The Bipartisan Policy Center estimates that somewhere between October 22 and November 1 is when “Treasury will have exhausted all its extraordinary measures and run out of cash on hand.”

We WOULD NOT DEFAULT TOMORROW!

I am so fed up with politicians, the media, and even our own HotAir hosts repeating this false mantra. It is a BIG LIE.

ITguy on October 16, 2013 at 3:51 PM

But Ted Cruz doesn’t *have* an audience anymore. Rand Paul does, but not Cruz.

libfreeordie

In your wet dreams….. :D

Now go mark a D on a student’s test just for spite. :)

itsspideyman on October 16, 2013 at 3:53 PM

libfreeordie is a 100% no answer commie for sure that one thing is proven up for sure now.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 16, 2013 at 3:53 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on October 16, 2013 at 3:15 PM

To late twerp. Primary Cornyn..

derft on October 16, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Cruz will be fine. He will fight til the end if he’s smart. A year from now when millions of Americans are choking and gagging on the Obamacare crap sandwiches the Dems shoved down their throats, Cruz will be there offering a napkin and a reminder that HE tried so very hard to save us from that Obamanation. Just wait. This shut down fluff will be loooong forgotten by then. The only thing Americans are going to want in the next election is someone who has proved they will fight for them instead of against them. Dem lies won’t work nearly so well on the low information types the next time around. People will be looking for someone to end their suffering.

HotAirian on October 16, 2013 at 3:55 PM

I suppose Cruz’s intention to go along with “unanimous consent” on the Reid-McConnell bill counts as a procedural “vote,” but it’s a vote that will be recorded as, um, “unanimous consent,” resulting in the elimination of a 30-hour delay before inevitable passage of the Reid-McConnell. Not much of a hill to die on.

de rigueur on October 16, 2013 at 3:27 PM

A Fair point… and you clearly understand what I was getting at.

But I fear, there are more than a few folks who have been caught up in the emotions of Cruz’s windmill tilting who can’t make that distinction.

There are many folks (claiming the mantle of Conservatism) who seem to think that every hill is worth dying on. Folks who dismiss those who disagree with them on strategic or tactical approaches as weak or evil or worse – even though those same people may agree with their larger aims.

It’s sad. (And, frankly, self-defeating).

Not to put too fine a point on it… but those who are in the throes of populist agitiation should do a little research on what Conservatism is all about. My guess is that Burke would look at today’s “conservatives” and consider them to be more like the French revolutionaries than the American colonial ones.

RightWay79 on October 16, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Cindy Munford on October 16, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Verbaluce. (Don’t say it 3 times.)

kingsjester on October 16, 2013 at 3:56 PM

kingsjester on October 16, 2013 at 3:56 PM

I won’t, thank you very much.

Cindy Munford on October 16, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Any bets on this being a sock puppet for one of our liberal commenters?

melle1228 on October 16, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Well, a rubberneck would be handy when libfree wants to… uh, never mind.

katy the mean old lady on October 16, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Well, a rubberneck would be handy when libfree wants to… uh, never mind.

katy the mean old lady on October 16, 2013 at 3:59 PM

I’m shocked…

oldroy on October 16, 2013 at 4:01 PM

The Trolls will tell you whom they fear.

kingsjester on October 16, 2013 at 4:02 PM

we hit the debt ceiling tomorrow

Come on, Allahpundit. You’re smarter than this.

Why don’t you do a post on the stuff that ITguy is presenting?

The debt ceiling date has always been incredibly arbitrary, and you must know that.

blink on October 16, 2013 at 3:40 PM

If I said what I’m thinking about Allahpundit right now, I’d be banned.

I am mad as hell that Allahpundit is repeating the BIG LIE and hasn’t figured out that we hit the debt ceiling FIVE MONTHS AGO!!!

But, the Treasury Secretary doesn’t think that “borrowing authority” means what we think it means.

We the People tend to think:
“borrowing authority” = the debt limit.

Treasury Secretary Lew thinks:
“borrowing authority” = the debt limit + extraordinary measures.

May 17, 2013:

“only Congress can extend the nation’s borrowing authority”

August 26, 2013:

“Based on our latest estimates, extraordinary measures are projected to be exhausted in the middle of October. At that point, the United States will have reached the limit of its borrowing authority, and Treasury would be left to fund the government with only the cash we have on hand on any given day.”

October 4, 2013:

“Only Congress can authorize an increase in the nation’s borrowing authority”

Only Congress can increase the Debt Limit, but apparently the Treasury Secretary thinks that he can continue to borrow money past the debt limit using “extraordinary measures”, and it’s only when those “extraordinary measures” are exhausted that the Treasury Secretary thinks the United States will have “reached the limit of its borrowing authority”.

What WE think is the limit is not what HE thinks is the limit.

And tomorrow is NOT a day that we would default. There is no debt payment due tomorrow, and the Bipartisan Policy Center estimates that somewhere between October 22 and November 1 is what they call the “X date” when “Treasury will have exhausted all its extraordinary measures and run out of cash on hand”. Even at that point, default would have to be a conscious CHOICE by Obama and Treasury Secretary Lew.

ITguy on October 16, 2013 at 4:02 PM

could he beat Reagan’s record of 49 states in 2016?

Pablo Honey on October 16, 2013 at 3:46 PM
How many states did Romney get, again? :)

Good Solid B-Plus on October 16, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Except Cruz is to Romney what The Hulk was to Bruce Banner. Had the feckless rinos in his own party actually stood by him and presented a unified front to the American people, yeah, we still might be where we are today, but with millions more Americans aware of the dangers we now face.

he better be on the d*mn ticket in 2016, or I’ll write him in myself.

CaptFlood on October 16, 2013 at 4:05 PM

…Sadly, Cruz is on the wrong side of history. This would’ve worked in the 80s, but we’re no longer Reaganite nation. It isn’t just the message, its the audience. Reagan played to his and Obama played to his. But Ted Cruz doesn’t *have* an audience anymore. Rand Paul does, but not Cruz.
 
libfreeordie on October 16, 2013 at 3:02 PM

 
Well said, my friend.
 

You’re around 30, right? Even $100/month at a pessimistic 6% for the next 30 years will give you over $100K for retirement. Starting young is the best time to begin so that interest has time to work its magic, especially since SS won’t be able to float you when you’ve retired.
 
rogerb on June 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM

 
Rogerb, its true. But some folks don’t have a natural head or disposition to save. I’m more the adventurous, lets make a memory kind of person. My guy is a level headed, sensible type so he handles the finances and that’s fine by me. In return I made an amazing bacon wrapped meatloaf tonight, win-win!
 
libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 11:20 PM

 

…and Obama played to his.

 
Well said.

rogerb on October 16, 2013 at 4:05 PM

This will always be referred to as Cruz’s Folly. He won’t get the nomination. He won’t be reelected in TX. He’ll be doing fox news in 5 years.

rubberneck on October 16, 2013 at 4:10 PM

This will always be referred to as Cruz’s Folly. He won’t get the nomination. He won’t be reelected in TX. He’ll be doing fox news in 5 years.

rubberneck on October 16, 2013 at 4:10 PM

LOL, sure thing Nostradumbass.

HumpBot Salvation on October 16, 2013 at 4:14 PM

‘Generational theft’ was so McCain, 2009.

Resist We Much on October 16, 2013 at 4:15 PM

This will always be referred to as Cruz’s Folly. He won’t get the nomination. He won’t be reelected in TX. He’ll be doing fox news in 5 years.

rubberneck on October 16, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Sure Cassandrass.

Now you and libbie join hands, hike up your skirts, and prance around.

itsspideyman on October 16, 2013 at 4:16 PM

rubberneck on October 16, 2013 at 4:10 PM

What was your last prediction?

Oh yeah. I guess President Romney really didn’t need the Conservative Base, did he?/

kingsjester on October 16, 2013 at 4:18 PM

LOL, sure thing Nostradumbass.

HumpBot Salvation on October 16, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Sure Cassandrass.

itsspideyman on October 16, 2013 at 4:16 PM

LOL! Hard to say which of these I like better.

totherightofthem on October 16, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Oh My: National Park Service Admits It Discussed Plan To Close War Memorials With Obama Officials…

Resist We Much on October 16, 2013 at 12:26 PM

B.S.
I watched the testimony.

verbaluce on October 16, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Somebody is a fibber and it isn’t Sophie.

Cindy Munford on October 16, 2013 at 4:20 PM

LOL, sure thing Nostradumbass.

HumpBot Salvation on October 16, 2013 at 4:14 PM

That’s funny right there.

oldroy on October 16, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Cindy Munford on October 16, 2013 at 4:20 PM

He/she/it only lies on Hot Air when he/she/it posts here.

kingsjester on October 16, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Somebody is a fibber and it isn’t Sophie.

Cindy Munford on October 16, 2013 at 4:20 PM

My goodness, verba’s lying?

I’m shocked, shocked.

itsspideyman on October 16, 2013 at 4:22 PM

rubberneck on October 16, 2013 at 4:10 PM

You need to come up with a different name. I don’t see that one catching on. Do you think the low info voters know what “folly” means? You might want to go with their base level of conversation and see if Cruz’s F^ck Up might not work better for your compatriots.

Cindy Munford on October 16, 2013 at 4:23 PM

My goodness, verba’s lying?

I’m shocked, shocked.

itsspideyman on October 16, 2013 at 4:22 PM

But if it repeats it enough times, it convinces itself that it is true, and doesn’t understand why others don’t believe.

oldroy on October 16, 2013 at 4:24 PM

You need to come up with a different name.

Cindy Munford on October 16, 2013 at 4:23 PM

How bout upobispooper?

itsspideyman on October 16, 2013 at 4:24 PM

You need to come up with a different name. I don’t see that one catching on. Do you think the low info voters know what “folly” means? You might want to go with their base level of conversation and see if Cruz’s F^ck Up might not work better for your compatriots.

Cindy Munford on October 16, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Losing your patience?

oldroy on October 16, 2013 at 4:26 PM

This will always be referred to as Cruz’s Folly. He won’t get the nomination. He won’t be reelected in TX. He’ll be doing fox news in 5 years.

rubberneck on October 16, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Unfathomably incorrect.
Cruz will be around the national political scene for quite a while.

Though, he has probably torpedoed his 2016 chances. (Anyone who doesn’t think he had the Presidency in his calculations hasn’t been paying attention to his Iowa trips, etc)

Rubio knocked himself out with a leftward miscalculation, and Cruz with a rightward one. If people are going to look for a legislator as the next GOP nominee, that means Rand Paul comes out on top.

My personal preference for 2016 would be someone from outside the beltway… a Jindal or a Walker. But failing them, I’d probably back someone like Ben Carson before I went for another Senator.

We’ll see how it all pans out.

Cruz is likely out for the actual nomination in 2016 (even if he still runs)… but he will be in a position to go for 2024 or even further out.

I kind of see him becoming the Ted Kennedy of the Right, though.
A long-time, ferocioiusly conservative (?) Senator.

RightWay79 on October 16, 2013 at 4:27 PM

oldroy on October 16, 2013 at 4:26 PM

I’m just getting over a head cold so I’m a tad grumpy. Was it too harsh?

Cindy Munford on October 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Cruz is likely out for the actual nomination in 2016 (even if he still runs)… but he will be in a position to go for 2024 or even further out.

I kind of see him becoming the Ted Kennedy of the Right, though.
A long-time, ferocioiusly conservative (?) Senator.

RightWay79 on October 16, 2013 at 4:27 PM

2016 is a long time a way. the Obamacare corpse and the amnasty immigration debacle will be on many minds. Only one person will come to mind who voiced opposition to it.

oldroy on October 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM

My guy is a level headed, sensible type so he handles the finances and that’s fine by me. In return I made an amazing bacon wrapped meatloaf tonight, win-win!

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 11:20 PM

Great! Do us all a favor and keep feeding him the bacon!
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/10/16/bad-news-men-study-shows-bacon-lowers-fertility/

Tenwheeler on October 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM

I’m just getting over a head cold so I’m a tad grumpy. Was it too harsh?

Cindy Munford on October 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM

As am I. I was just poking fun because I too lose patience with trools who are here for no other reason but to disrupt. It get’s tiresome, I know.

Zicam….take some zicam for the cold.

oldroy on October 16, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Not to put too fine a point on it… but those who are in the throes of populist agitiation should do a little research on what Conservatism is all about. My guess is that Burke would look at today’s “conservatives” and consider them to be more like the French revolutionaries than the American colonial ones.

RightWay79 on October 16, 2013 at 3:55 PM

What Edmund Burke might have said in reference to the House attempting to withhold funding from Obamacare, as is its prerogative under the U.S. Constitution:

It happened, you know, Sir, that the great contests for freedom in this country were from the earliest times chiefly upon the question of taxing… In order to give the fullest satisfaction concerning the importance of this point, it was not only necessary for those who in argument defended the excellence of the English constitution, to insist on this privilege of granting money as a dry point of fact, and to prove, that the right had been acknowledged in ancient parchments, and blind usages, to reside in a certain body called a House of Commons. They went much farther; they attempted to prove, and they succeeded, that in theory it ought to be so, from the particular nature of a House of Commons, as an immediate representative of the people; whether the old records had delivered this oracle or not. They took infinite pains to inculcate, as a fundamental principle, that in all monarchies the people must in effect themselves, mediately or immediately, possess the power of granting their own money, or no shadow of liberty could subsist. The colonies draw from you, as with their life-blood, these ideas and principles. Their love of liberty, as with you, fixed and attached on this specific point of taxing. Liberty might be safe, or might be endangered, in twenty other particulars, without their being much pleased or alarmed. Here they felt its pulse; and as they found that beat, they thought themselves sick or sound.

He was, of course, speaking in support of American colonists who were, at the time, engaged in a revolution against the British crown.

de rigueur on October 16, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Tenwheeler on October 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Not relevant. They reproduce by fission, like all bacteria.

novaculus on October 16, 2013 at 4:34 PM

Oh yeah. I guess President Romney really didn’t need the Conservative Base, did he?/

kingsjester on October 16, 2013 at 4:18 PM

He was dragged to far right by you nut cases. He’s a good man, and would have made a much better leader than Obama.

rubberneck on October 16, 2013 at 4:35 PM

oldroy on October 16, 2013 at 4:31 PM

It may be too late for Zicam. I still have some of the old stuff that they took off the market but unfortunately it is in Florida and I am not. I might go get some anyway. I am almost as annoyed with the cold as I am with Democrats.

Cindy Munford on October 16, 2013 at 4:37 PM

“There’s nothing to be gained from delaying this vote one day or two days.”

And what exactly was gained from the Obamacare funding filibuster, other than for Cruz to solidify his position as the favorite choice of the self-styled base?

Basilsbest on October 16, 2013 at 4:37 PM

rubberneck on October 16, 2013 at 4:35 PM

He is a good, decent man. He is also the Godfather of Obamacare, socially Liberal, and “severely” Conservative.

“Us nut cases” couldn’t move him out of the lukewarm, squishy Middle.

He ran a lousy campaign. That’s why he lost.

And, all the time you and your fellow Trolls spent insulting Hot Air Conservatives, went for naught.

Bummer.

kingsjester on October 16, 2013 at 4:39 PM

Tenwheeler on October 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Not relevant. They reproduce by fission, like all bacteria.

novaculus on October 16, 2013 at 4:34 PM

Oops, my bad……

Tenwheeler on October 16, 2013 at 4:40 PM

George W. Bush.

Lolz!!!

Bmore on October 16, 2013 at 4:42 PM

My guy is a level headed, sensible type so he handles the finances and that’s fine by me. In return I made an amazing bacon wrapped meatloaf tonight, win-win!

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 11:20 PM

Your creditors are very relieved. Heaven help them if you ever take over your finances. You’ve proven time and time and time again that you are an economic and financial illiterate.

Resist We Much on October 16, 2013 at 4:42 PM

He was dragged to far right by you nut cases. He’s a good man, and would have made a much better leader than Obama.

rubberneck on October 16, 2013 at 4:35 PM

When the heck and how did Romney go far right? He couldn’t even attack Obama effectively.. And the “binders full of women” ” 47 percent” comments were all him.

melle1228 on October 16, 2013 at 4:43 PM

novaculus on October 16, 2013 at 4:37 PM

He doesn’t get enough press, he does a great job.

Cindy Munford on October 16, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Oh yeah. I guess President Romney really didn’t need the Conservative Base, did he?/

kingsjester on October 16, 2013 at 4:18 PM

He was dragged to far right by you nut cases. He’s a good man, and would have made a much better leader than Obama.

rubberneck on October 16, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Romney, while not the best candidate, as agreed by nearly everyone, was torpedoed and backstabbed by the workings of the Justice Department and the IRS working on behalf of the Democratic Party and Barack Obama. What did not help was his and other Republican runners refusing to take the fight to the public airwaves.

The fact that the Establishment Republicans in Congress have yet to make one public case about any of these illegal acts is in itself criminal, and suggests malice aforethought, or their complicity in the whole affair.

Tenwheeler on October 16, 2013 at 4:45 PM

We’ve asked everyone that might actually know, but taking into account certain fairness protocols…

rogerb on October 16, 2013 at 4:46 PM

would have made a much better leader than Obama.

rubberneck on October 16, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Well no sh!t, Sherlock. You’re carping at a bunch of people that voted for him. There is just not pleasing you, we vote the way you want and you hate that and we stand by our principles and you hate that to. I’m going to tell you what you keep telling us. Shut up.

Cindy Munford on October 16, 2013 at 4:48 PM

libfreeordie, I need your input on something, please.

 

“So that’s why the individual mandate’s important,” Obama explained in a speech on Aug. 15, 2011.
 
“Because the basic theory is, look, everybody here at some point or another is going to need medical care, and you can’t be a free-rider on everybody else,” said Obama…
 
http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=14952502&sid=77&cid=77

 

The tax/fine on a person making $43K who doesn’t want or can’t afford insurance will only equal about $860 (vs. thousands in premiums and deductibles), and $860 will barely cover any actual medical procedure.
 
Hospitals will still be required by law to provide care regardless of insurance coverage or ability to pay.
 
Can you explain how Obamacare does anything to change the free rider problem?
 
Give us specifics, please.

rogerb on October 16, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Well no sh!t, Sherlock. You’re carping at a bunch of people that voted for him. There is just not pleasing you, we vote the way you want and you hate that and we stand by our principles and you hate that to. I’m going to tell you what you keep telling us. Shut up.

Cindy Munford on October 16, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Bravo! +1000

melle1228 on October 16, 2013 at 4:54 PM

de rigueur on October 16, 2013 at 4:33 PM

I still think he would view the angry populist sentiment of some on the current day right as more akin to the goings on of 1789 than of 1776.

Burke here, speaking of the French Revolution … but he may as well be admonishing against the current “Burn it Down” crowd that are pretenting to be Conservatives.

To avoid therefore the evils of inconstancy and versatility, ten thousand times worse than those of obstinacy and the blindest prejudice, we have consecrated the state, that no man should approach to look into its defects or corruptions but with due caution; that he should never dream of beginning its reformation by its subversion; that he should approach to the faults of the state as to the wounds of a father, with pious awe and trembling solicitude. By this wise prejudice we are taught to look with horror on those children of their country, who are prompt rashly to hack that aged parent in pieces, and put him into the kettle of magicians, in hopes that by their poisonous weeds, and wild incantations, they may regenerate the paternal constitution, and renovate their father’s life.

Society is indeed a contract. Subordinate contracts for objects of mere occasional interest may be dissolved at pleasure—but the state ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco, or some other such low concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties. It is to be looked on with other reverence; because it is not a partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born. Each contract of each particular state is but a clause in the great primæval contract of eternal society, linking the lower with the higher natures, connecting the visible and invisible world, according to a fixed compact sanctioned by the inviolable oath which holds all physical and all moral natures, each in their appointed place. This law is not subject to the will of those, who by an obligation above them, and infinitely superior, are bound to submit their will to that law. The municipal corporations of that universal kingdom are not morally at liberty at their pleasure, and on their speculations of a contingent improvement, wholly to separate and tear asunder the bands of their subordinate community, and to dissolve it into an unsocial, uncivil, unconnected chaos of elementary principles. It is the first and supreme necessity only, a necessity that is not chosen, but chooses, a necessity paramount to deliberation, that admits no discussion, and demands no evidence, which alone can justify a resort to anarchy. This necessity is no exception to the rule; because this necessity itself is a part too of that moral and physical disposition of things, to which man must be obedient by consent or force; but if that which is only submission to necessity should be made the object of choice, the law is broken, nature is disobeyed, and the rebellious are outlawed, cast forth, and exiled, from this world of reason, and order, and peace, and virtue, and fruitful penitence, into the antagonist world of madness, discord, vice, confusion, and unavailing sorrow.

(emphasis added)

Burke here, speaking of the French Revolution

RightWay79 on October 16, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Not to put too fine a point on it… but those who are in the throes of populist agitiation should do a little research on what Conservatism is all about. My guess is that Burke would look at today’s “conservatives” and consider them to be more like the French revolutionaries than the American colonial ones.

RightWay79 on October 16, 2013 at 3:55 PM

What Edmund Burke might have said in reference to the House attempting to withhold funding from Obamacare, as is its prerogative under the U.S. Constitution:

It happened, you know, Sir, that the great contests for freedom in this country were from the earliest times chiefly upon the question of taxing… In order to give the fullest satisfaction concerning the importance of this point, it was not only necessary for those who in argument defended the excellence of the English constitution, to insist on this privilege of granting money as a dry point of fact, and to prove, that the right had been acknowledged in ancient parchments, and blind usages, to reside in a certain body called a House of Commons. They went much farther; they attempted to prove, and they succeeded, that in theory it ought to be so, from the particular nature of a House of Commons, as an immediate representative of the people; whether the old records had delivered this oracle or not. They took infinite pains to inculcate, as a fundamental principle, that in all monarchies the people must in effect themselves, mediately or immediately, possess the power of granting their own money, or no shadow of liberty could subsist. The colonies draw from you, as with their life-blood, these ideas and principles. Their love of liberty, as with you, fixed and attached on this specific point of taxing. Liberty might be safe, or might be endangered, in twenty other particulars, without their being much pleased or alarmed. Here they felt its pulse; and as they found that beat, they thought themselves sick or sound.

He was, of course, speaking in support of American colonists who were, at the time, engaged in a revolution against the British crown.

de rigueur on October 16, 2013 at 4:33 PM

…and “Boom” goes the nightstick of historical truth.

ebrown2 on October 16, 2013 at 4:54 PM

(emphasis added)

Burke here, speaking of the French Revolution

RightWay79 on October 16, 2013 at 4:54 PM

A vote of no confidence on the budget by the American equivalent of the Commons=The French Revolution

Yeah, an English parliamentarian would make that equation. (rolls eyes)

ebrown2 on October 16, 2013 at 5:00 PM

ubberneck on October 16, 2013 at 4:35 PM

He is a good, decent man. He is also the Godfather of Obamacare, socially Liberal, and “severely” Conservative.

“Us nut cases” couldn’t move him out of the lukewarm, squishy Middle.

He ran a lousy campaign. That’s why he lost.

And, all the time you and your fellow Trolls spent insulting Hot Air Conservatives, went for naught.

Bummer.

kingsjester on October 16, 2013 at 4:39 PM

Obamacare is as similar to Romneycare as Michelle Obama is to Halle Berry.

Romney ran a good campaign and turned out larger and more enthusiastic crowds than Obama. He lost because America is a lot more stupid and liberal than you realize. Even on this day, as the House capitulates, you live in a cocoon.

As for your socially liberal calumny, you are a treasure trove of misinformation.

http://www.aboutmittromney.com/pro-life-endorsements.htm

Basilsbest on October 16, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Ted Cruz: No, I won’t hold up the Senate bill to end the shutdown

That’s it, he’s a RINO! Purge him!

rukiddingme on October 16, 2013 at 5:08 PM

rubberneck on October 16, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Its really not your fault you know?

Bmore on October 16, 2013 at 5:09 PM

A vote of no confidence on the budget by the American equivalent of the Commons=The French Revolution

Yeah, an English parliamentarian would make that equation. (rolls eyes)

ebrown2 on October 16, 2013 at 5:00 PM

I’m speaking on the mindset of the Burn It Down crowd.
I don’t think Cruz is in that crowd.

I’m talking about that smallish segment of folks who consider themselves the “conservative grassroots base” but who have no concept of what it means to emplay a Conservative philosophical framework.

Cruz has played to these people and incited their passions… and now they won’t accept anything less than exactly what they demand. All or nothing. If that means shutdown, Great! If that means officially hitting the debt limit, Rock On!

These things are not necessarrily the apocalyptic crises that the Left tries to sell them as…

But they are not nothing.

Frankly, it is a sick, cynical worldview which allows a person to not only desire but actually seek to work towards the collapse of any of our systems or institutions.

That mindset is decidedly not Burkean… and so, I say, not Conservative.

RightWay79 on October 16, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Burke here, speaking of the French Revolution

RightWay79 on October 16, 2013 at 4:54 PM

To continue from Burke’s Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies:

Then, Sir …from all these causes a fierce spirit of liberty has grown up. It has grown with the growth of the people in your colonies, and increased with the increase of their wealth; a spirit, that unhappily meeting with an exercise of power in England, which, however lawful, is not reconcilable to any ideas of liberty, much less with theirs, has kindled this flame that is ready to consume us.

I do not mean to commend either the spirit in this excess, or the moral causes which produce it. Perhaps a more smooth and accommodating spirit of freedom in them would be more acceptable to us. Perhaps ideas of liberty might be desired, more reconcilable with an arbitrary and boundless authority. Perhaps we might wish the colonists to be persuaded, that their liberty is more secure when held in trust for them by us (as their guardians during a perpetual minority) than with any part of it in their own hands. The question is, not whether their spirit deserves praise or blame, but–what, in the name of God, shall we do with it? You have before you the object, such as it is, with all its glories, with all its imperfections on its head. You see the magnitude; the importance; the temper; the habits; the disorders. By all these considerations we are strongly urged to determine something concerning it. We are called upon to fix some rule and line for our future conduct, which may give a little stability to our politics, and prevent the return of such unhappy deliberations as the present. Every such return will bring the matter before us in a still more untractable form.

We are speaking of the intractability of those bad ol’ tea partiers, who in my estimation have only just begun to fight. They drink from the same spring of liberty from which you profess to imbibe. They are unruly and very opposed to the Established Order of Things. They are your brothers. The question Burke posed in a parallel situation was: what are you going to do about them? Call them names, whip them back into line? Suppress them utterly?

As happened over 200 years ago, and as Burke warned then, the attempts will utterly fail.

de rigueur on October 16, 2013 at 5:14 PM

So? He’s a guaranteed ‘no’ vote. Non-story.
*Cornyn the little weasel…*

annoyinglittletwerp on October 16, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Matt Patrick, Houston conservative radio host, interviews Cornyn. Cornyn virtually hangs up on this host..who, by the way, did an excellent job holding his weasly feet to the fire. I loved every second of it!

http://www.kprcradio.com/media/podcast-matt-patrick-kprc-podcast-mattpatrick_kprc/matt-patrick-100813-hr-1-23813574/

ziggyville on October 16, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Romney ran a good campaign and turned out larger and more enthusiastic crowds than Obama. He lost because America is a lot more stupid and liberal than you realize. Even on this day, as the House capitulates, you live in a cocoon.

Basilsbest on October 16, 2013 at 5:08 PM

I needed that laugh.

Mitt lost because he sucked at campaigning. He sought no need to defend himself when pilloried daily on Bain Capital, and he kept referring to Obama as a “nice guy who’s in over his head.”

And then there was Project ORCA, which did more to deflate any GOTV drive than anything the DNC could have dreamed up.

Yet you still want live in this facade of denial and delight in ripping conservatives who just weren’t interested in electing an aloof, boring Northeastern big-government Republican as President because, by God, HE WAS TEH ONLY ELECTABLE ONE as you and your fellow ‘conservative’ pundits MSM cohorts told us for TWO FREAKING YEARS PRIOR TO THE ELECTION.

People like you make me resent the GOPe with a seething passion.

Myron Falwell on October 16, 2013 at 5:19 PM

RightWay79 on October 16, 2013 at 5:10 PM

You are not the arbiter of conservatism.

It is arguably a conservative view to prefer a smaller fire now to a much bigger and far more destructive fire later.

Make no mistake, if we don’t stop spending money we don’t have and may very well never have, we risk far more than the consequences of a shut down now.

novaculus on October 16, 2013 at 5:20 PM

When the heck and how did Romney go far right? He couldn’t even attack Obama effectively.. And the “binders full of women” ” 47 percent” comments were all him. melle1228 on October 16, 2013 at 4:43 PM

You are not fair minded. Romney demolished Obama in the first debate in what was the most one-sided debate in the history of presidential debates. He was well ahead in the second debate until he was blind-sided by the moderator.

The 47% comment was an off the record statement to supporters. The binders full of women(‘s resumes) was awkward but Obama said many things just as awkward which received no publicity.

Considering that his opponent had the support of 90% of the media and and 4 years to organize his campaign, Romney did very well and ran ahead of his party. If he had attacked Obama as you wanted him to, he wouldn’t have done as well.

Basilsbest on October 16, 2013 at 5:21 PM

RightWay79 on October 16, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Show me one person who has equated the “burn it down” adage with a full blown revolution. We are talking about a slim down that most citizens have felt little or no impact. And we have twice “defaulted” and this the eighteenth “shut down” and here we are, still of good old U.S.A.. Although I will admit we are weaker because of the dismantling of all the gains that we made during the shut down during Clinton. To paraphrase Mrs. Thatcher, eventually they will run out of other people’s money. This is the housing bubble on a worldwide scale.

Cindy Munford on October 16, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Matt Patrick, Houston conservative radio host, interviews Cornyn. Cornyn virtually hangs up on this host..who, by the way, did an excellent job holding his weasly feet to the fire. I loved every second of it!

http://www.kprcradio.com/media/podcast-matt-patrick-kprc-podcast-mattpatrick_kprc/matt-patrick-100813-hr-1-23813574/

ziggyville on October 16, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Good for Matt. A fan of his for many years back in his Cleveland radio days.

Myron Falwell on October 16, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3