In a bit of deft political analysis, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX/Canada) was on CNBC and channeled his inner-Ann Coulter, and said --
""We need to learn from history. If Republicans run another candidate in the mold of a Bob Dole or a John McCain or a Mitt Romney... we will end up with the same result, which is millions of people will stay home on Election Day. If we run another candidate like that, Hillary Clinton will be the next president."
O what, o whatever-so could his point be? That perhaps unless Republicans run a far-right candidate (like, hmm, gee, I don't know...possibly someone from the Deep South, as well as Frozen North, covering all the bases and available countries), they would lose. Not that this isn't fully self-serving, of course, that's to be expected from most anyone who wants to be President of North America. But it's the logic of it all that's so whiz-bang.
I mean, it's a great debating point to say that if we pick candidates like candidates who have lost, we will lose. That's pretty unimpeachable logic. It's sort of like saying, "If the American League keeps sending teams to the World Series who score fewer runs than their opponents, they will continue to lose."
On the other hand, if what he's saying is that if Republicans pick a candidate who isn't radical far-right reactionary they'll lose yet again, it's a bit tougher bit of logic to accept, since that doesn't factor in the first George Bush, let alone Richard Nixon, or honestly even George W. Bush, who (while conservative) got elected running middle-of-the-roadish "compassionate conservative." For that matter, Ronald Reagan (the former Hollywood union president governor of hippy California) was significantly more moderate than the reactionary-right of today, and probably couldn't even get nominated in the current GOP landscape.
And it doesn't factor in the most far-right conservative who's run for president in the last 50 years, Barry Goldwater -- the Republican conservative patriarch who got pummeled by Lyndon Johnson in one of the biggest landslides in U.S. history.
But still, in the end, I don't know if Ted Cruz is someone we can trust for spot-on analysis of the United States political scene. But then, if he wants to discuss his views on Canada, he might be on to something.
""We need to learn from history. If Republicans run another candidate in the mold of a Bob Dole or a John McCain or a Mitt Romney... we will end up with the same result, which is millions of people will stay home on Election Day. If we run another candidate like that, Hillary Clinton will be the next president."
O what, o whatever-so could his point be? That perhaps unless Republicans run a far-right candidate (like, hmm, gee, I don't know...possibly someone from the Deep South, as well as Frozen North, covering all the bases and available countries), they would lose. Not that this isn't fully self-serving, of course, that's to be expected from most anyone who wants to be President of North America. But it's the logic of it all that's so whiz-bang.
I mean, it's a great debating point to say that if we pick candidates like candidates who have lost, we will lose. That's pretty unimpeachable logic. It's sort of like saying, "If the American League keeps sending teams to the World Series who score fewer runs than their opponents, they will continue to lose."
On the other hand, if what he's saying is that if Republicans pick a candidate who isn't radical far-right reactionary they'll lose yet again, it's a bit tougher bit of logic to accept, since that doesn't factor in the first George Bush, let alone Richard Nixon, or honestly even George W. Bush, who (while conservative) got elected running middle-of-the-roadish "compassionate conservative." For that matter, Ronald Reagan (the former Hollywood union president governor of hippy California) was significantly more moderate than the reactionary-right of today, and probably couldn't even get nominated in the current GOP landscape.
And it doesn't factor in the most far-right conservative who's run for president in the last 50 years, Barry Goldwater -- the Republican conservative patriarch who got pummeled by Lyndon Johnson in one of the biggest landslides in U.S. history.
But still, in the end, I don't know if Ted Cruz is someone we can trust for spot-on analysis of the United States political scene. But then, if he wants to discuss his views on Canada, he might be on to something.
