Subscribe via RSS Feed

We Wouldn’t Have Had All Of Those Problems!

[ 252 ] September 12, 2013 |

Shorter Ted Cruz: I have a dream. I have a dream in which the Senate consists of 100 unreconstructed bigots.* We would greet Barack Obama’s next State of the Union address by whistling “Dixie.”

It should be noted that Ted Cruz is a perfectly plausible candidate to be the Republican candidate for president in 2016.  I think you can understand why Republicans on the Supreme Court hate the Voting Rights Act so much they’re willing to rule parts of it unconstitutional even before they’ve figured out why.

*Of course, as the National Review reminded us, he didn’t oppose civil rights, he just “opposed a particular vision of them.” You know, the kind that involved civil rights protections for racial minorities or women.


Comments (252)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. TribalistMeathead says:

    When I worked on the Hill 12 years ago, I remember attending some sort of fundraiser where the funds were used to make a sizable donation to the Whitman-Walker Clinic in Jesse Helms’ name. Pretty sure it was a regular thing, too.

  2. Shakezula says:

    I too think the GOP could use a 100 more like Helms. They would utterly destroy the party and something reasonable could fill the vacuum.

    Helms began singing the opening lines of “Dixie,” and then he turned to Hatch: “I’m going to make her cry,” Helms said. “I’m going to sing ‘Dixie’ until she cries.”

    MJ left out the money quote:

    “And I looked at him and said, ‘Sen. Helms, your singing would make me cry if you sang ‘Rock of Ages,’ ” Moseley-Braun said.

  3. muddy says:

    I just had a good laugh looking over the headlines in the WaPo email, and here I see Ted Cruz, bravely saying he’s somewhere in between Rand Paul (supposed libertarian) and John McCain (usually in favor of bombing everyone).

    Does that cover the entire range of Republican views, why yes it does! And that brave Ted Cruz has staked a firm position! Of somewhere, somewhen, between alpha and omega. Whatta man.

  4. Mondfledermaus says:

    Just to make it clear… This guy is not hispanic, his mother is not hispanic, and he does not even speak spanish. His mother’s husband is cuban exile, which happen to be the most bitter, hate filled people in earth.

    • TribalistMeathead says:

      And they’ll probably be a lot less reliably Republican once Castro finally kicks the bucket.

      • David Hunt says:

        I wonder about that. It’s my understanding that they hate Castro because he took their stuff. Once he’s gone, they’ll still want all that shit back. The old ones left over from the revolution will never give it up and their kids have literally been raised hearing about the theft of their property their whole lives.

        It’s kinda like how Southerners are subconsciously pissed because if it weren’t for the North, they’d have Halle Berry living in their house. Cleaning it. For free.

        Credit where credit it due to John Rogers for putting it terms that are easy to understand.

        • Dana says:

          Yes, the original exiles were mostly Cuba’s light-skinned property holders who generally have ideas about race and class you might expect from that sort of demographic. As a Miami native, I’d say their children and grandchildren are a more mixed bag politically, and don’t generally obsess about Castro. Growing up an ethic minority in middle class America has had some positive affects, IMO.

    • rea says:

      Well, of course he’s Hispanic. A better point is that the Cuban exile community doesn’t have much in common with most US Hispanics.

    • NonyNony says:

      His mother’s husband…

      This makes it sound like you’re saying that Ted Cruz’s father is not Rafael Cruz. As far as I’ve ever read Rafael Cruz is his father – I haven’t read any indication that he is a child from a previous marriage or an unwed mother or anything like that.

    • timb says:

      Everyone knows Cruz is Canandian

    • timb says:

      happen to be the most bitter, hate filled people in earth

      White people in general and, specifically, Serbs, would like to object

    • steve says:

      Is ethnicity matrilineal? I wasn’t aware. I suppose someone should tell Obama that he is not black then.

      • steve says:

        One thing is for sure though, Cruz is no true Scotsman.

      • Murc says:

        You laugh, but I have meet people (including my father’s wife, and unlike the OP, I do not mean my mother when I say that) who claim loudly that Obama is not black, he’s “mulatto” and that him claiming to be black is a dishonest attempt at vote-grabbing.

        • wjts says:

          “Well, what’s the word for it, Lana? You freaked out when I said ‘quadroon’.”

        • delurking says:

          Half my family makes this argument every time Obama’s name comes up. “He’s not really black! His mother was WHITE!” (Staring at me fiercely, the lone progressive in the room.) “He just SAID he was black to GET VOTES.”

          • zombie rotten mcdonald, shambling dog of the imperialists says:

            Although i don’t think anyone was hiding the fact that Obama was of mixed race, the question becomes, which votes were going to change?

            What it really boils down to is the desire to use repulsive and denigrating terms to describe the level of purity. It’s pretty much the same impulse as the people who wanted to yell “nigger nigger nigger!”

          • Shakezula says:

            Heh. So sorry. Based on a definition we didn’t create, he’s black.

            I still hear the occasional dipshit claiming that he didn’t have a “real black experience” growing up because he is mixed. As if racists stop to enquire about a person’s ancestry before the bullshit begins. “Oh my. We were going to spit at you, but since your mother was white, we’ll just give you a dirty look.”

            • Tristan says:

              Well, he wouldn’t have had the full gamut of historical/structural obstacles. Racial profiling and other discrimination, obviously he did.

              The thing about him being the son of a white American and a black African (as opposed to the huge oversimplification of ‘mixed race’) is that it does throw a bit of a wrench into the works of him being held up as a symbol of capital P Progress (maybe it’s just my own experience with seeing waaay too many white people congratulate themselves for ending racism by telling people to vote on twitter talking). I think there’s actually something to dissect there, but the well’s been so poisoned by people who took that and turned it into ‘he pretended to be black to trick all those black people with whom I do not associate’, that any implications probably can’t be meaningfully discussed until long after we’re all dead.

              I’m probably leaving myself hugely open to misinterpretation here, but at least there’s a good chance it will illustrate that last point.

              • Machete says:

                I would argue that his father is equally as important. Not only was he not from America, he was from east Africa, which does not share the same legacy of slavery as most African Americans in the U.S.

                I think I know what you’re getting at, but lets not discount the importance of what people perceive you as. In terms of the individual experience, it pretty much trumps any mixed race or cultural identification.

                My mother is white, my father is a fairly dark skinned Hispanic. I’m just swarthy enough to not be considered white. The other thing is, I never really identified as Hispanic. I didn’t grow up in a very Hispanic area (at least not populated with many other of my kind of Hispanic, it’s a broad category) grew up away from my fathers side of the family, and am not a native Spanish speaker. I’m truly my mothers son, a WASP through and through.

                However, this didn’t stop me from, in elementary school, having an ignorant and racist teacher ask me if I was in the right class (honors class). She didn’t ask any white kids. Countless other examples, involving cops too. So regardless of my mixed race background, I’m still interpolated into the category of nonwhite. Perception trumps my own identification.

                I see what you’re saying about structural issues, and in a sense you’re right, but I think you’re a little dismissive.

                • J. Otto Pohl says:

                  There was quite a bit of slavery and slave trade in what is today Kenya. It is just that very few if any of them were sent to the US. They either worked in Africa or were transported to the Middle East or India. But, overall the US was a very small part of the international slave trade. Only 4% of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade went to the US versus 40% to Brazil

                • Lurker says:

                  Machete is right. I think that Obama’s “Dreams of My Father” gives a pretty good view on this. Obama, who was not at the time a presidential hopeful, recounts in some detail his struggle to accept his identity: he knows pretty well that by his upbringing, he is white upper middle class, accepted to the university as a legacy, not as affirmative action.

                  Yet, Obama cannot avoid being considered black, and the latter part of the book is largely dedicated to his phase of becoming “an angry young black male”. He notes, however, that this road will not lead anywhere, and in my opinion, the final note of the book is Obama’s decision to apply for law school. (The ending with Obama’s trip to Kenya is more of an epilogue.)

                  Thus, Obama is black in the “one-drop-rule” sense but not culturally. His paternal ancestors are not slaves but Kenyan tribal aristocracy and his maternal family, which actually raised and educated him, are respectable middle class. This gives Obama certain cultural capital that most African Americans are lacking.

                • Tristan says:

                  I think I know what you’re getting at, but lets not discount the importance of what people perceive you as.

                  Oh, I’m absolutely not trying to. At the very least, that’s definitely the most direct experience of racism for any minority group, and as someone else here said no one makes sure to research your ethnography before judging your appearance. And I certainly agree that “his father(‘s background) is equally as important” for the reasons you cite. That’s what I was trying to get at by saying ‘mixed race’ is an oversimplification, that it’s not a matter of him being in some way ‘less black’.

                  I agree with everything you say here (with the exception of calling me dismissive, but even that’s on me for failing to better convey my thinking(and probably also that you bruised my ego a bit)), and definitely didn’t mean to minimize any of the issues you’re pointing out.

                  I’ve spent about ten minutes trying and failing to organize the following into something cohesive, so I’m just going to bullet point it:

                  1. The context I’m coming from on this goes back to shortly after the ’08 election, when I actually saw someone online refer to Obama, positively, as a token (the exact phrasing, if I recall, was “a beautiful token”), in the sense that the election of a black man was some sort of gesture from the white majority to the black minority. This was a guy who fancied himself liberal-left seriously arguing that Obama’s election was (possibly primarily) important as an accomplishment on the part of white America (being less horribly racist). I wish I had saved the text now, because it’s hard to convey just how staggeringly self-congratulatory and unreflective it was from memory. It was basically a nominally progressive version of the ‘racism is over’ argument in the recent VRA ruling, and if it didn’t explicitly deny structural racism it at least implied that that wasn’t a major concern because ‘real’ racism had clearly been ‘fixed’.

                  2. Obama’s election is obviously a very important milestone regardless of all that, and what I’m trying to get at is not meant to, nor do I think it does or can, take away from that.

                  3. It’s sort of absurd that I’ve written this much in both this and my original post (only have myself to blame there), since I’m quite serious when I say (or tried to say, looking at it now it reads like I was just being snide) that useful/productive/enlightening discussion on this might well be impossible at this point in time. This is actually quite literally the only time I’ve even tried, because it’s very much my sense that people’s responses will fall into one of two camps: the flat out “he’s not really black” bigots, and people who will be quite justifiably suspicious that you’re of, or at least sympathetic to, the former.

                  3a. I haven’t even touched on the long and odious history of gradations of blackness being defined by a white ruling class, though obviously that’s a huge contributor to how muddy these waters are, and maybe I don’t have enough knowledge there to meaningfully get at anything on this myself (full disclosure, I’m about as WASPy as one can get in ethnic terms, so there’s zero firsthand experience there, and while I’ve read academic texts that touch on it, it’s not an area I can claim to have really studied).

                  4. Looking at it now I’m really not thrilled with my earlier writing there. Hopefully this doesn’t come off as complete self-apologism, but I have been insomniac all week, as anyone paying weirdly close attention to the time stamps on my posts could guess, so at any given time I’m some mix of drowsy and over-caffeinated, and my self-image demands that I blame that.

                  5. I’m just realizing that maybe I don’t have much of a point beyond that I’m personally frustrated and depressed that race relations are still where they are, and this subject just sort of highlights that for me?

            • Johnny Sack says:

              *face hits the sidewalk*

              No, wait a second officer! My mother was white!

              Oh! I’m terribly sorry sir! *helps him up, walks away*

              • Murc says:

                Larry Willmore, in his capacity as “Senior Black Correspondent” on The Daily Show, has done some excellent riffs of this nature re: Obama’s mixed-race status, but he’s, you know… Larry Willmore. Most people are NOT Larry Willmore, and I think we can all agree that’s a tragedy.

              • Sheriff Bart says:

                Well to tell the family secret, my grandmother was Dutch.

      • J. Otto Pohl says:

        It is for the Asante and the Jews.

  5. muddy says:

    He looks like Joe McCarthy. It’s like when poisonous creatures have a special coloring to warn you of danger.

  6. #1 IHOP Fan says:

    Ah caught you liberal! This is actually longer than the original Cruz quote so it’s all a LIE! Also how could you write this without mentioning ROBERT KKK BYRD !!!!!!!!!

    • sparks says:

      If you want to be Southern-fried Jenny, that would be “librul”. Do it good or don’t do it at all, son.

      • Anna in PDX says:

        I thought the Byrd schtick was Manju. I guess I come here too often when I can tell one troll from another.

        Seriously though the JenBob troll is just pathetic, but I find Manju and J. Otto kind of interesting and sometimes they make good points when they are not about their particular hobby horses. In fact I think this blog has the best trolls I have seen (except for JenBob).

        • zombie rotten mcdonald says:

          J. Otto is kind of like the Bigfoot guy at Sadly, No. Inherently loopy and innately derailing, but considered affectionately by the locals.

          • Anna in PDX says:

            I sort of relate to him because I am a U.S.’ian who lived outside the US many years and sometimes feel the urge to comment on this irrelevantly, because so many USians make such blanket statements about the nature of life, the universe and everything. Since I have been back home for going on 8 years now, this impulse is starting to fade. Soon I will be as US centric as everyone else.

            • zombie rotten mcdonald, shambling dog of the imperialists says:

              I think you should let that impulse fly. All you have to do is be less narcissistic than JOP about it, which shouldn’t be a high bar to clear.

          • sparks says:

            Hm. Since the founders have all left and Cerb’s tl;dr form is most of the content I don’t go there much. Haven’t read comments there in at least a year, maybe two.

            I don’t see J. Otto as a troll, but a narcissistic derailer most of the time. He made a good comment re: Hispanic/Chicano here which shows he can have his moments.

            • zombie rotten mcdonald, shambling dog of the imperialists says:

              yeah, the Bigfoor guy has been gone a long time, also. I even forget his name…

            • Jordan says:

              Yeah, neither J. Otto or Manju are really trolls. They are both narcissistic derailers, but not really trolls. Plus, actually, both can bring the funny from time to time.

              • zombie rotten mcdonald, shambling dog of the imperialists says:

                I don’t think I called JOP a troll. Manju is a tougher call.

                • zombie rotten mcdonald, shambling dog of the imperialists says:

                  of course, actor212 once called me a dick at whiskeyfire, so feel free to ignore that previous. And any other of my comments, what the hell.

                • Jordan says:

                  You didn’t, just agreeing with sparks.

                  Manju is a slightly tougher call. But I think he believes what he says and doesn’t act intentionally destructively, or at least, no more than JOP does. That seems good enough to count as “not a troll”.

                • Jordan says:

                  Well, the real question is whether trolls can be zombified or not.

                • zombie rotten mcdonald, shambling dog of the imperialists says:

                  I don’t think so. Different genus of cryptozoids.

                • Jordan says:

                  Well, it appears that there are zombie troll faces, so there is that.

                • zombie rotten mcdonald, shambling dog of the imperialists says:

                  heck, there are zombie slippers.

                • Jordan says:

                  YOU PEOPLE have gone soft.

                • anthrofred says:

                  How do you keep from going soft when your flesh is rotting?

                • Jordan says:

                  Eating the brains of the living, presumably.

                • zombie rotten mcdonald, shambling dog of the imperialists says:

                  Manju is a slightly tougher call. But I think he believes what he says and doesn’t act intentionally destructively,

                  I disagree. He is willing to shift definitions, argue vaguely, use pretty much the whole array of logical fallacies, create strawmen, and change the subject when a thread down’t go his way.

                  Total pancakes.

                • Jordan says:

                  See, I think he acts destructively, but doesn’t do so intentionally. He certainly does all the things you say. But there is still a space between him and Jenbob. I think Manju is young and dumb and might grow out of it. I think Jenbob is just fucking with everyone.

                • zombie rotten mcdonald, shambling dog of the imperialists says:

                  to me, his consistency in acting such makes him a troll. He may be young and able to grow out of it as you say, I am willing to hope.

                  But from this end, the results are the same so intentions don’t really matter.

                • Jordan says:

                  That is all true. I submit my brains.

          • Jordan says:

            J. Otto is now explicitly a a bigfoot guy, of course.

  7. bspencer says:

    I get “page not found” when I try to click that old National Review link. Huh.

  8. jim, some guy in iowa says:

    off topic, but I presume I’m not the only person getting ads for Glock’s “concealed perfection” that gives the white fella with the badge “confidence to live your life”

    makes the viagra ads seem subtle

  9. MAJeff says:

    The best thing about Jesse is that he’s still dead. That’s actually the only good thing I can say about him.

  10. MAJeff says:

    *Of course, as the National Review reminded us, he didn’t oppose civil rights, he just “opposed a particular vision of them.” You know, the kind that involved civil rights protections for racial minorities or women.

    He also opposed the ability of LGBT people to live.

  11. Edmund says:

    I was wondering when all this would start.

    Cruz trounced the Republican Establishment candidate David Dewhurst, for the Texas senate seat. He was outspent by multiples but he appealed to the voters.
    Ted’s debating is unmatched. He’s a Harvard graduate.

    And, he’s rising in the ranks quickly.

    It’s not too surprising that liberals are starting to attack him. You can’t be too careful about 10 year old children, ya’ know. And, as we all know, Jesse Helms did nothing other than be a bigot.

    • JMP says:

      Hee hee. Yes, liberals are afraid of Cruz just like they were of Sarah Palin. Please, please don’t nominate that far-far-far-right idiot who will be destined to lose every state outside of the deep South, Republicans!

      Considering that that evil pile of shit Helms never did anything notable other than be a giant bigot, and that he was such a huge racist, sexist and homophobe that it sort of outshined anything else about him, fuck yeah he might as well have done nothing other be a bigot.

      • N__B says:

        I must disagree. The inbred morons of Utah will carry that state for Cruz.

      • steve says:

        I think he is a bit more dangerous than Palin because he is actually a smart person who knows exactly what he is doing and how to rile up the mouth-breathers.

        • JMP says:

          They both know how to rile the mouth-breathers, but neither is all that smart; really the main difference is that Cruz seems to have actual ambition for higher office and power, while Palin is only interested in milking the rubes for as much money as she can con from them.

        • Warren Terra says:

          I share your concern, but remember Romney: even someone who is not remarkably dumb, and probably not remarkably zealous in the pursuit of evil, is required by the dynamics of the modern Republican party to play dumb, and to play evil, to the hilt. Leaving aside the long-term effects of consistently playing dumb, this establishes a track record and a public image it’s difficult to subsequently escape.

          (I realize Romney’s not a perfect case; his richie-rich clueless zillionaire affect also hurt him, and wasn’t similarly forced on him by the party base. But he was the first one to leap to mind).

      • David Hunt says:

        onsidering that that evil pile of shit Helms never did anything notable other than be a giant bigot,

        Not quite true. His wikipedia page says even his enemies admitted he had excellent constituent services. I’m guessing “for white people” is the unspoken understanding, however.

      • Edmund says:

        Yeah..that’s why we’re not talking about him now.

        Ted Cruz seems to be able to win hearts, minds and elections.

    • Hogan says:

      Tell us more about Jesse Helms’s legislative accomplishments.

      • Edmund says:

        Shaped foreign policy for the Republican party.

        Anti Communist

        Helms helped defeated Clinton’s worst appointments.

        I think there are several articles out there that you won’t read here that outlines accomplishments made during his five terms.

    • NonyNony says:

      Let me just say that, as a liberal, I am both outraged and terrified at the thought of Ted Cruz being the GOP nominee in 2016.

      Almost nothing would make me more angry and/or more terrified (take your pick) than Ted Cruz running on the GOP ticket.

      No – I take that back. Louis Gohmert at the head of the ticket would both terrify and outrage me more. Please Republicans, do not put a Louis Gohmert/Ted Cruz GOP ticket up for the 2016 election. It would make me both angry and terrified and, as a liberal, I would hate it. Just positively hate it. Please do things that, as a liberal, I would like. Like moderating your stances and nominating Chris Christie as your nominee. As a card-carrying liberal I would absolutely love for the GOP to nominate Christie. Keep that in mind.

      • Cardinal Ximinez says:

        NOBODY expects the Republican nominations! Our chief candidate is Cruz … Cruz and Gomert … Gomert and Cruz. Our TWO candidates are Cruz and Gomert ….. and Rick Santorum. Our THREE candidates are Cruz, Gomert, Rick Santorum, and an almost fanatical delegation for John McCain!

        Our FOUR …no… AMONGST our candidates…. Amongst our nominees … are such citizens as Cruz, Gomert …. I’ll come in again.

      • efgoldman says:

        Please Republicans, do not put a Louis Gohmert/Ted Cruz GOP ticket up for the 2016 election.

        Nice try,Br’er NonyNony, but even the TeaHadis can’t put running mates from the same state on the ticket.
        But I’d sure by all the Orville Redenbacher stock I could get!

        • JMP says:

          Nah, Bush/Cheney proved it’s easy to get around that. And really, in that case (and that one only) their stretching of the rules was OK; the rule against a President and VP from the same state doesn’t make any real sense today.

      • Daverz says:

        Another thing that really pisses us liberals off: people who drink bleach, especially people who guzzle bleach by the gallon. Also people who drink antifreeze make us seethe with rage.

        • NonyNony says:

          Oh man, you have almost hit on one of my major pet peeves, as a liberal. People who mix antifreeze and bleach cocktails and then drink them while watching Red Dawn and poking their house keys into live electrical sockets. I think they do it just to piss me off.

          And it really, really, really pisses me off when people do that. I can’t tell you how angry it makes me, as a liberal, when people do crap like that.

    • drkrick says:

      I’m not aware of anything Helms did that I liked any better than his work as a bigot but I haven’t made a close study. Please enlighten us.

    • efgoldman says:

      Ted’s debating is unmatched. He’s a Harvard graduate.

      I lived a few miles from Harvard most of my life. I have known hundreds of Harvard students and graduates. Some of them might have been debaters; a few of those were good debaters. More were some combination of slackers, stoners, and legacies. A lot were brilliant in a very narrow field; a very, very few were generally brilliant.
      But then, Eddie thinks rich people deserve respect for their accomplishments, if they’re skilled and smart enough to ca$h their trust and inheritance checks.

      • anthrofred says:

        Cruz does seem to have some talent, if by debater you mean “troll extraordinaire” who can stay smug under pressure. It has absolutely nothing to do with his going to Harvard.

      • Jordan says:

        In a general sense, Cruz was, apparently, a very good debater.

        “While at Princeton, he competed for the American Whig-Cliosophic Society’s Debate Panel and won the top speaker award at both the 1992 U.S. National Debating Championship and the 1992 North American Debating Championship. In 1992, he was named U.S. National Speaker of the Year and Team of the Year (with his debate partner, David Panton). Cruz was also a semi-finalist at the 1995 World Universities Debating Championship.”

        From Wikipedia.

        • Anna in PDX says:

          Gee, he is a Whig? I thought he was a republican.

        • cleter says:

          There are a number of college debating leagues, and the US National Debating Championship is not one of the big ones. That’s not University of Alabama winning the BCS. It’s more like Southwest Texas Bible College winning the Division AAAAAAA Footballesque Tournament of Champions against Eastern Kentucky Veterinary College.

          Now, if he’s claiming to have won the National Debate Tournament in 1992, well, that’s a lie. Georgetown beat Harvard at nationals in 1992.

        • Cody says:

          Wow, with those credentials is he even a real American? I thought Real Americans weren’t the intellectual elites that competed in things like debate club!

          • mds says:

            Wow, with those credentials is he even a real American?

            Well, let’s see: Born outside the US, only one parent a US citizen, is a mixed-race member of an ethnic minority group, was an editor of Harvard Law Review, is running for president during his first term as a US senator, and is an adherent of a misogynist rage-filled faith that hates democracy and our rights and freedoms as Americans. Given that this makes him almost indistinguishable from the mendacious fuckwitted teabagger caricature of Barack Obama, I’d have to regretfully say no.

        • Pat says:

          So he and his partner David Panton are master debaters?

    • wengler says:

      Cruz is a Tea Party idiot from Texas. If you think he’s a viable national candidate go ahead and see how well he does. I’ve got my popcorn ready.

    • Linnaeus says:

      He’s a Harvard graduate.

      Oh, that’s a good thing now? I keep getting confused.

    • southend says:

      So you’re conceding that Helms was, in fact, a bigot?

    • NBarnes says:

      I’m gonna be dead honest with you and say that I think that Ted Cruz is much more formidable than Sarah Palin as a politician and as opposition to the policies I support.

      That said, it’s a pretty low bar to get over.

    • UserGoogol says:

      I think it’s entirely possible Ted Cruz could win in 2016. Whether he’s a great debater or a radical out of the mainstream of American politics is kind of irrelevant. A big part of elections is determined by fundamentals: debate skills and moderation help a candidate, but they aren’t enough to swing an election one way or the other.

      Candidates lose a few points for being radical and need a certain amount of competence, but at the end of the day, personal traits of candidates are a relatively minor factor.

      (And Jonathan Bernstein has a decent enough blog post saying as much.)

    • Rigby Reardon says:

      Jesse Helms did nothing other than be a bigot.

      Pretty much, yeah.

      • Anna in PDX says:

        As the ranking senator on the foreign relations committe he had a lot to do with cutting funding for the state department and foreign aid, which he likened to pouring money down a hole.

  12. joe from Lowell says:

    If the Republicans manage any half-way decent showing in 2014 while indulging in this sort of thing, they’re going to take it as an invitation to go Full Cracker in 2016. Primary candidates will be competing to show that they aren’t cowed by the politically correct liberal media.

    I don’t think that would work out very well for them with a presidential-year electorate.

    • NonyNony says:

      Um, joe? I hate to tell you, but at this point I think that they could lose big in 2014 – lose the House entirely even – and they would STILL go Full Cracker in 2016 on the theory that they “weren’t conservative enough” in 2014.

      I mean, I don’t think that has a chance in hell of happening in 2014, but the party has lost so much grip on reality that outcomes no longer matter at all. Only the appearance of hewing completely to the party dogma.

      • Pat says:

        Unless all the true conservatives stay home, because the Establishment sold them out on Obamacare.

        • joe from Lowell says:

          I can’t get a bead on Republican primary voters. No matter how disenchanted they were, they always fell in line.

          Ford in 76, Bush in 92, Dole in 96, McCain in 08, Romney in 12.

          History says they should fall in line behind (I dunno, Christie? Scott Brown?), but they just might not this time.

          • efgoldman says:

            History says they should fall in line behind (I dunno….

            Really? Cosmo Boy? he won’t be running against Coakley(*), it won’t be an off-year/off month election, nd its a presidential year. Plus the crazies won’t come out for another MA guy.

            (*)Down here in RI, I’m seeing hints that Coakley may try running for Governor. She’s been a terrific AG, but, please, no.

            • joe from Lowell says:

              I was trying to come up with a second name that fit the criteria “mainstream Republican with national profile.”

              • efgoldman says:

                I was trying to come up with a second name that fit the criteria “mainstream Republican with national profile.”

                And thus the GOBP problem in a nutshell. There are no more of those people. JEB? Remember Terri Schiavo and his positions on social issues. Plus his name and genes. Christie? Well he got elected (and will probably be re-elected) in a Northeast state, but I think that really works against him in the Confederate primaries (and in other nutcake states, like AZ). Who else? A senator? A house member? A governor who might not carry his own state after governing as a TeaHadi?
                They can’t gerrymander presidential elections; and based on last year, I imagine a huge GOTV effort (and many more lawsuits) in the suppression states.

                • zombie rotten mcdonald says:

                  Ryan and Walker are both trying to fit that profile.

                • joe from Lowell says:

                  Here is the Republican primary map from 2012.

                  As you say, the hated the northeastern governor in the South.

                  It didn’t seem to matter.

                • JMP says:

                  Although the Southerners hatred of Romney probably could have changed the outcome of they could agree on a candidate, instead of splitting close to evenly between the amphibian and the frothy mix.

                • sharculese says:

                  I really thought my home state had the good sense not to fall for Newt a second time. Sigh.

                • Bufflars says:

                  Heh, CO and MN going to Santorum. I didn’t remember that.

                • joe from Lowell says:

                  Oh, yeah. Santorum was all over the mid-west.

                • Johnny Sack says:

                  Let’s not discount the role of Jon Corzine in the election of Chris Christie. Not to discount Christie’s skill as a politician, which he does possess, but we have to give an equal amount of credit to Corzine alienating literally everyone in the state of New Jersey and especially his own party. If Corzine won a second term (well he’d be governor now), we’d have Cory Booker running for Governor this year instead of Senator. And he’d probably win and Christie would not be a national Republican.

              • JKTHs says:

                I’m sure by 2016 Ted Cruz will be considered a moderate Republican.

              • Jordan says:

                Maybe one of those governors who got out earlier, but have run for president before. That Utah guy who was ambassador to China (Huntsman?) or the new president of Purdue (Daniels?). Maybe something like that.

                • joe from Lowell says:


                  When was the last time the Republican nomination was won by somebody that no one saw coming?

                • Jordan says:

                  True. I think this *is* a time where there isn’t a clear frontrunner for the Republican nominee. So it is weird, but there are … “establishment” type Republicans out there.

                • Djur says:

                  Daniels actually is a right-wing lunatic, but I’m sure he can pretend to be “mainstream” if it’s called for.

                  I feel like Huntsman has too recently run nationally as a centrist to be accepted by primary voters — and, more importantly, by the Republican power elite. Romney was always able to disclaim every vaguely centrist position he held as part and parcel of being the governor of a blue state.

                • rea says:

                  Huntsmn has Romney’s Mormon problem without the redeeming right wing lunacy. He actually worked for Obama, which is treason. The fact that he’s an order of magnitude richer than Romney might help in the primaries, but wasn’t noticed last time.

        • wengler says:

          You gotta give the Republicans some credit, they are destroying their old Establishment and making a new one. One that is much more honest about the ways in which they wish to roll back rights and criminalize the poor.

      • JMP says:

        Remember, conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed; therefore, even someone as far right as Romney was not conservative enough, and would have won if he had gone even further to the right.

    • wengler says:

      A lot of what will happen in 2014 will be a reaction to when the Republicans once again taking the economy hostage in yet another debt ceiling debacle.

  13. […] Sen. Ted Cruz tells a conservative group America needs 100 Jesse Helms in the Senate (former NC Senator Helms retired a […]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.