Cruz is rocking a retrograde, wet-look haircut and is unambiguously and unambivalently conservative on any social issue, including the phantom menace of Sharia law (“an enormous problem” in America, according to Cruz).That's putting it mildly. Have a look and you'll see that Cruz is straight-up wingnut on everything, pretty much -- against gay marriage and open borders, for the death penalty, as strong a supporter of Big Oil as Texas has ever sent to the Senate, etc. (In some areas, like foreign policy, his conservatism overlaps libertarianism -- as does the conservatism of, say, Sarah Palin these days; so long as Obama is CiC, conservatives are provisional doves.)
There isn't really any difference between the two creeds except on social issues, and Cruz is totally retrograde there. So why should libertarians support him? Because together they can win, imagines Gillespie:
As [Rand] Paul brings in fresh new blood to a broad, limited-government coalition, Cruz is locking down the tired old blood that realizes the John Boehners, Mitch McConnells, John McCains, and Lindsey Grahams of the world really don’t give a rat’s ass about them.There you have it. The so-called social-libertarian stuff isn't such a big deal to them, as libertarians themselves are starting to admit; so long as corporations are allowed to run rampant (and for the little people, barbers don't need licenses!), they can brush all that gay/black/women stuff into a states-rights discussion, where they'll patiently Randsplain that civil liberties don't have to be the same thing in Alabama as they are in California, because that's why we have the Articles of Confederation.
It'll be like always, in other words, except the guys at Reason will be working for Republicans out in the open. Well, more out in the open.
I could make a comparison to tag-team Lucha Libre, but I wouldn't want to offend Rand Paul.
ReplyDeleteShouldn't it be RandsplAyn?
ReplyDeleteA right wing libertarian is somone who will defend to the death someone else's right to deny you an abortion or a gay marriage. They are generous like that.
ReplyDeleteOh how I would love to play poker with anyone who doesn't think Cruz is a complete power-hungry phony. Isn't there some way we could introduce bullshit detection into the core curriculum?
ReplyDelete"Cruz is rocking a retrograde, wet-look haircut..."
ReplyDeleteWell, yes--a wet-look haircut above a massive thug's forehead, the doe eyes and sad-you're-forcing-him-to-torture you expression of a Central American generalissimo, and the prissy little mouth of a connoisseur of sadism, all made audible by an Elmer Fudd-meets-Dr. Strangelove nasal tenor that could provide a lifelong career as a villain in cheap South Korean animation. He's Joe McCarthy on a GOOD day.
He's Joe McCarthy on a GOOD day.
ReplyDeleteHoly shit, you ain't kiddin': http://homebrewedtheology.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/mccarthy-cruz-cropped-proto-custom_28.jpg
: Rand daddy Nick Gillespie tells us "Ted Cruz Might Just Have Won the Future for the GOP"
ReplyDeleteOh, yeah, if there's something that appeals to the young, hip crowd, it's reading Green Eggs and Ham and totally missing the point.
So Cruz is like the Bruce Willis to Paul's Justin Long? I'd watch that, assuming a helicopter fell on both of them in the end.
ReplyDeleteSo Cruz:Paul::Richie:Fonzie?
ReplyDeleteOr is it Cruz:Paul::Lenny:Squiggie?
At any rate, their 2016 campaign will surely be one of those sitcoms that starts out wildly popular, then quickly becomes annoying.
Maybe we should start calling him Tailgunner Ted.
ReplyDeleteCruz also seems to have a thing for Maybelline Lasting Drama Gel Eyeliner.
ReplyDeleteChris Matthews has pointed out the resemblance many times. (Some might say too many times, but I like the old bird.)
ReplyDeleteYeah, they're really into that "irony" thing. (Nudge-nudge wink-wink.)
ReplyDeleteThat's a comb-over. Gack.
ReplyDeleteNo panties, so throwing a ratty old pair of boxer briefs at this comment.
ReplyDeleteNot true! If a state tried to pass a law preventing a corporation from getting an abortion, Reason would be all over that shit.
ReplyDeleteMcCarthy without the liver damage. Yet.
ReplyDeleteCruz:Paul::Leopold:Loeb.
ReplyDeleteThat's already been started. Check out Charlie Pierce on esquire.com
ReplyDeleteSure! It's the libertarian dream: Limited government that's limited to expanding the rights of "makers" (which, of course, every true glibertarian is at heart, even when accepting those foodstamps) and brutally oppressing everyone that Nick doesn't like.
ReplyDeleteThe part I find fascinating is Nick's wet-dream about the "broad limited-government coalition" the Paul and Cruz will be spearheading. Most normal people find Cruz to be vile, empty, and opportunistic--and thus repellent. As for Rand Paul and Crazy Uncle Liberty (!), Charlie Pierce's 5-minute rule guarantees that voters without severe emotional disabilities won't be turning out in droves for any ticket bearing their names.
ReplyDeleteWell, hell, if, since infancy, you've grown up with the attitude that no one disagrees with your ideas, well, you're bound to latch onto the belief that everyone thinks exactly the way you do. Instant "broad limited-government coalition!"
ReplyDeleteGillespie is just one more of that clotted agglomeration of people reaching impressionable young adulthood at the same time that Reagan was on the cusp of flim-flamming the public into putting him in charge, so Gillespie really, really, really believes the nonsense about "limited government," even though the historical evidence shows that Reagan had consistently done exactly the opposite of what he preached. And, the press said, ad nauseum, that Reagan "was a popular President," so, goodness, that means that everyone was and is for "limited government," about as vague and fungible a euphemism as ever was invented.
Like many of the genuine idiots in this country, deep down, Gillespie believes that Reagan proved he was right. And, as my old math instructor said, "the inability to let go of a bad idea is the sign of a weak mind."
They're all for limited government as long as it's not a woman making a decision about her own health, and god forbid you should limit the size of the military. Their principles are about as plastic as their smiles.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what the 2016 ticket will be, but I'm pretty sure it won't be BOTH of those guys. To get the nomination, one of them will have to shiv the other pretty viciously, since they are both competing for the same pool of primary voting whackaloons.
ReplyDeleteGillespie et al ought to follow the lead of the producers of the Atlas Shrugged movies and see if they can get enough sadasses to fund their libertarian kingmaking through Kickstarter.
ReplyDeletehttp://happynicetimepeople.com/atlas-shrugged-producers-launch-kickstarter-finish-self-reliant-epic/
They're asking 250,000 for the third installment of Atlas Shrugged, I don't have an idea of how much it costs to make a bad movie, but that sounds like barely enough to make a couple of early episodes of Dark Shadows.
Cruz:Paul::Steve Forbes with a comb-over:Steve Forbes wearing Shatner's "Wrath of Khan" toupee
ReplyDeleteWhere the fuck is McCarthy's lapel flag?
ReplyDeleteThere's a disturbing image. I'm seeing him in a pair of salmon chaps. It's corrosive.
ReplyDeleteThat's ASSLESS salmon chaps.
ReplyDeleteIt's semi ironic that the poster boy for American exceptionalism is a Canadian.
ReplyDeleteShorter Nick Gillespie: I bet Ted Cruz looks bitchin' in a leather jacket.
ReplyDeletebut there would be a weed ration,
ReplyDeleteActually, Rand Paul opposes marijuana legalization, and as someone who shamelessly panders to shrieking theocratic dumbshits, Ted Cruz is unlikely to be pro-legalization, either. Peter Thiel might be gay and pro-weed, but he didn't massively bankroll Cruz to promote gay rights or decriminalization. Why would he, when existing restrictions don't greatly inconvenience him personally? (See also: the Cheneys.) On the other hand, eliminating taxes, relegalizing slavery and otherwise utterly destroying the very notion of the common good are important to Thiel's mouth-frothing Objectivist psychopathy.
Paul: The way I see it Ted, is you bring the Catholics.
ReplyDeleteI'll get the Christians.
It's a whole other topic, but the ingrained mythology of the Reagan presidency is also a source of endless fascination. From Reagan as tax cutter (despite raising taxes more than he cut them) to Reagan as champion of cutting government down to size (despite expanding government's role in every facet of American life EXCEPT corporate oversight), half-wits like Gillespie prefer the mythology and become downright belligerent when confronted with the historical record.
ReplyDeleteThat's something I call aggressive ignorance.
"the doe eyes and sad-you're-forcing-him-to-torture you expression of a Central American generalissimo"
ReplyDeleteThis really does seem to be a common trait among some of the recent wingnut all-stars. Paul Ryan has patented alternating between a more-in-sorrow than-anger condescension with Eddie Haskell awshucks-isms. It makes you appreciate the transparent assholery of a Dick Cheney or Tom DeLay.
By which "appreciate", I mean " I want to punch them in the face rather than give them a wedgie and dunk their head in a toilet."
A libertarian comment goes COMMANDO so there's nothing to throw but effluvia. Still: you have that from me.
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking a lot about Cruz this weekend, both because of his horrible performance in the Senate and because he went to Princeton and then to Harvard Law. Its not that I think those are signs of, say, liberalism but say what you will about those two places they can afford to be picky about who they let in and Cruz was not a legacy in either place. He has to be at least quite intelligent, even if that is merely a polite word for low cunning and ability to bombast on his feet. So my only explanation for his terminally awful display of stupidity on the Senate floor is that he has consciously modeled himself on the dumbest kind of auditor he can imagine--someone he doesn't need to waste the pearls of his education or his intellect on. Someone so far beneath his experience and intellect that he needs to communicate with them in broad, moronic, strokes.
ReplyDeletePeople used to say about Bush that he sounded so stupid because he was always explaining things to the American people in the same way the people around him had explained things to him--because they treated him like a moron. Cruz is the explainer and he thinks the voters he wants are as dumb as rocks.
Thrill killing the economy? I like it. I think they are just dumb enough to drag the body into a culvert and leave their glasses behind.
ReplyDeleteCommitment to a vendetta against 100 new Robert Mapplethorpes we haven't discovered yet?
ReplyDeleteWhat could be more exceptional than an American who is a Canadian?
ReplyDeleteWell, in fairness, the voters he needs in 2016 are as dumb as rocks.
ReplyDeleteAn American who is a Cuban? Oh, wait...
ReplyDeleteCleverly disguised as an Eisenkreuz
ReplyDeleteWho Is John Default?
ReplyDelete"I have come here to read Green Eggs and Ham and totally miss the point... and I'm all out of the point."
ReplyDelete"introduce bullshit detection into the core curriculum"
ReplyDeleteGood god, Krebs! They *like* bullshit, prefer it to all other communications media. If you think they're wrought up about Agenda 21, wait till they hear about your evil plan.
For comparison's sake, Napoleon Dynamite was made for $400,000. Take that, cut out the trained llama and muscle cars, and you've got a rough estimate of what the Shrugged guys have to work with.
ReplyDelete"Cruz is rocking"
ReplyDeleteNo. Ted Cruz is the poor man's Darrell Issa, and the homeless man's Paul Ryan. He's Ken Cuccinelli without the olive oil voice and Guinea charm. He's a smooth jazz Creed cover band.
Say what you will about the tenets of granny starvation, I like to think a Paul Ryan fauxlibuster would've at least given us a dramatic reading of Led Zeppelin lyrics on the Senate floor.
Americans aren't going to vote for a guy who they don't thinks likes normal stuff like bikinis, BBQs, guitar solos, dogs with bandanas, shit like that. The "guy you'd rather have a beer with" thing is a horrible cliche (it's more like "the guy it wouldn't be incredibly weird and uncomfortable to get trapped in an elevator with"), but with the exception of Nixon, it predicts every presidential winner since the Great Depression.
America doesn't like desperate weenies, especially the "You Can't Make Me" demographic. I don't think people outside the bubble realize what a charmless peckerwood Ted Cruz comes across as. "So we're thinking, let's take everything sort-of relatable about Paul Ryan, and turn him into a giant moral scold whose first act as President would be to sign the No More Kittens or Blowjobs or Regular Jobs Either Act of 2017. Genius!"
And what he actually talked about was so pandering. I could see the whole Cruz algorithm at work when I saw him blathering about "Neville Chamberlain in the 1940's" -- him sitting there working on stuff for his jerkathon beforehand, and making a note to get some historical dates wrong so he wouldn't seem too smart. There are so many other American politicians who are shall we say much more naturally gifted at coming across as a brainless nosepicker. Well, I believe America can do dumber. We don't need fake ignoramus Canadians coming in and stealing jobs from homegrown American morons.
He's a smooth jazz Creed cover band.
ReplyDeleteI want to walk down a beach hand-in-hand with this comment in soft focus while a soprano sax wails gently in the background.
If you listen closely you'll find that the soprano sax is in fact whining.
ReplyDeleteOddly, the DeeBee also links to this BuzzFeed article that pretty much says the opposite:
ReplyDelete“Sure, he’s revving up the base, but so did Michele Bachmann and Pat Buchanan,” said one longtime Republican strategist who has worked on multiple state and national campaigns. “If you’re serious about running for president… you need the serious money, more than the direct mail crowd and the small money donors.”
“That,” the Republican said, “is the difference between winning the Iowa Caucus and winning in a serious state like Florida.”
I'm enjoying the AV Club headline about it: "Atlas Shrugged producers turn to Kickstarter for help warning others against moochers."
ReplyDeleteTypically marvelous smack-down essay and, better yet, a pretty credible scenario you describe, however absolutely weird.
ReplyDeleteIt would be a fun game to see how many drinks before he forgets to say "But that would be wrong."
ReplyDeleteSeriously. I've yet to have a political conversation with a self-described libertarian wherein said libertarian didn't immediately blame "poor life choices" that he (always a he and always white) shouldn't have to "pay for" when the topics of, say, women's right to their bodies or poverty in minority communities. Scratch a libertarian, find a hardcore social conservative, so long as white dudes' freedoms aren't endangered.
ReplyDeleteA bunch of Texanians voted for him, which says as much about them as it does about him. Remind me again why we wanted them as the 28th state...
ReplyDeleteJosh Marshall recently wrote a piece about Cruz having always been a jackass, though smart -- Josh was a year ahead of him at Princeton (though he didn't really remember him) and Josh's wife was Cruz's classmate both at Princeton and HLS and absolutely loathed the guy. As did everyone Josh talked to from their college acquaintances who remembered him.
ReplyDeleteThe best part of it is that their star is now a hot property (Orange Is The New Black) and yet they still can't manage to cash in.
ReplyDeleteI think I'd have to cut out before the vodka prayer.
ReplyDeleteCut out also the sweetness and cleverness in the writing.
ReplyDeleteWow, no sooner did I read this than some Libertarian doofus - a white guy, natch - used exactly that phrase to say why users of Krokodil deserved what they got. (If you haven't heard of Krokodil, be careful googling - street drug that often has impurities that cause really horrible wounds. Ew.)
ReplyDelete