Ted Cruz Closing Strong

Texas Senator Ted Cruz has run a very impressive campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. In fact, it is amazing to see he has done so well give his duplicity and polarizing nature.

Cruz has been shrewd in his approach to securing convention delegates, and he has displayed a keen understanding of each state's rules for winning delegates. Current GOP front-runner Donald Trump exploded into a Twitter rage over the weekend after Cruz won all of Colorado's 37 convention delegates. “The people of Colorado had their vote taken away from them by the phony politicians. Biggest story in politics. This will not be allowed!” Trump tweeted.

Trump has only himself to blame for being outmaneuvered by the man he refers to as "lying Ted." The rules are the rules and they are well known to candidates who do their homework. Last August the Colorado Republican Party announced it would not let voters take part in the nomination process. At the time, the Denver Post reported, “The GOP executive committee has voted to cancel the traditional presidential preference poll after the national party changed its rules to require a state’s delegates to support the candidate that wins the caucus vote.” This begs the question, "If Trump can get out foxed in Colorado, how can he succeed in negotiations with China and Iran?"

Senator Cruz has carefully navigated the turbulent Republican nomination process to build the second largest collection of loyal delegates going into the convention. Once one of 17 GOP candidates running for the nomination, he has positioned himself well to be a viable alternative to Trump. Cruz kept his powder dry in the earlier primaries and caucuses, refusing to get caught up in the name calling and sniping that characterized much of the campaign. He was an outstanding college debater, but so far his debate performances during the primaries has been unremarkable.

Instead, he has focused on winning delegates with charm, wit and deceit. In the Iowa Caucus, the Cruz campaign adopted "social pressure" techniques to scare Republicans out to vote. It sent out mailers to likely voters with the heading "VOTER VIOLATION." The mailer included threatening text, "Your individual voting history as well as your neighbors' are public record. Their scores are published below, and many of them will see your score as well." The Iowa Secretary of State later condemned this tactic, "Accusing citizens of Iowa of a 'voting violation' based on Iowa Caucus participation, or lack thereof, is false representation of an official act."

Cruz was so determined to win in Iowa that as caucus goers were preparing to head to the polls his campaign sent them an urgent email blast. The email claimed that Dr. Ben Carson would be dropping out of the race and they should instead vote for Cruz. Of course, the email was a deliberate lie, but Cruz eked out an important first victory over the field.

Ted Cruz has been the great disrupter since he first entered the Senate following his victory in the 2012 election. He is very unpopular among other senators because of his brash and divisive polemics. He referred to other Republican senators as the "surrender caucus" because they did not sufficiently oppose President Barack Obama. Cruz accused his own Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell telling "a flat out lie" on the floor of the chamber. Cruz is single handedly responsible for the 2013 government shutdown by rallying gullible House Tea Party members against their leadership's better judgment.

Fellow Senator John McCain has called Cruz a "wacko bird" and crazy. In February, Senator Lyndsey Graham, a former presidential candidate, said, "If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you." Now, remarkably, Graham has joined those supporting Cruz as a way to keep Trump from winning the nomination outright. Their hope is that Trump will fail on the first ballot and some other candidate will emerge. But Cruz knows that, so he remains busy adding delegates using every trick in the book so he can be that some other candidate.

However, a word of caution to Cruz supporters, winning a party nomination is a lot different that winning the presidency. First, Cruz will have to unite a deeply divided convention, especially Trump delegates. Secondly, Cruz will have to moderate his extreme positions on everything from same sex marriage and abortion to immigration and "carpet bombing" ISIS. His economic plan is forecast to add trillions to the national debt by many economists, and will add thousands to the unemployment roles. His plan to eliminate the IRS is unrealistic and impractical. While he qualifies as a Latino, Cuban-Americans make up a small minority of the Hispanic population, which votes overwhelmingly Democratic. He will be challenged on his qualifications to run for president because he was born in Canada. His wife worked for Goldman Sachs, which is one reason Ron Paul observed in February, "He's owned by Goldman Sachs. I mean he and Hillary (Clinton) have more in common."

If Cruz makes it all the way to the White House, how will he unite his party? How will he persuade Democrats to work with him? How will his presidency bring an end to the gridlock on Capitol Hill? How will his emotive language and tough talk earn America more respect around the world? How will he bring Americans together? The simple answer is, he won't.

You see, Ted Cruz loves to hear Ted Cruz talk. His animated motions, hands thrusting down to emphasize his points, underscores the passion he has for himself. He projects a carefully crafted point and often punctuates it with a wry smile of self-appreciation, as if to say, "I'm amazing." He always speaks with the confidence of a man who believes he is the smartest person in the room.

Two years before he was elected the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln reportedly said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time." I am not sure Ted Cruz would agree with that.

Obama: No Apologies

"We do not leave anybody wearing an American uniform behind," President Barack Obama said at a news conference in Brussels Thursday.  He was addressing the controversy that has swirled around the exchange of U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl for five high ranking Taliban prisoners that had been held in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo, Cuba.  The president offered this justification, "We had a prisoner of war, whose health had deteriorated, and we were deeply concerned about, and we saw an opportunity, and we seized it.  And I make no apologies for that."

Five years ago Bergdahl apparently walked away from his military post in Afghanistan, leaving behind his weapon and helmet.  He was soon captured by the Taliban.   Last Saturday the president was joined on the White House South Lawn by Bergdahl's family as he announced their son had been released.  But the good news, even many Republican members of Congress quickly tweeted their support, suddenly turned into a political firestorm of controversy.

Congressional critics include Senator John McCain, who described the exchanged Taliban prisoners as "the hardest of hard-core…possibly responsible for thousands of deaths."  The Joint Task Force Guantanamo earlier had classified them as high risk, and two are wanted by the United Nations for war crimes.  But the five Taliban terrorists, also known as the Gitmo Five, have been in custody at Guantanamo for more than a decade and have never been charged.  Further, once America's war in Afghanistan is over sometime next year, the U.S. would have had to release them.  

Many in congress, from both parties, claim that the president had failed to comply with his legal obligation to inform its members 30 days in advance of any prisoner release from Guantanamo.  On Thursday, President Obama said, "We had discussed with Congress the possibility that something like this might occur, but because of the nature of the folks that we are dealing with and the fragile nature of these negotiations, we felt it was important to go ahead and do what he did."

Discussions about swapping the Gitmo Five for Bergdahl have taken place in the past, including in 2011.  Then members of congress, and key administration officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, opposed such a deal.  But the conditions changed when Qatar agreed to keep the Taliban terrorists for one year, and the president announced the war will end next year.   Nonetheless, Congress will hold hearings on whether the president broke the law.

Most members of the military agree that Bergdahl had to be rescued.  On Sunday's edition of ABC's This Week National Security Advisor Susan Rice said, "He served the United States with honor and distinction…and we'll have an opportunity to learn what transpired in the past." Her comment was not received well by members of his platoon, many of whom have criticized Bergdahl.  "I believe that he totally deserted--not only his fellow soldiers--but his leadership that wanted the best for him and his country," Justine Gerieve, Bergdahl's former squad leader, told CNN.  

CNN also reported that Bergdahl had walked away from his post at least once before.  General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, posted a comment about Bergdahl on Facebook Monday night,  "As for the circumstances of his capture, when he is able to provide them, we'll learn the facts," he wrote.  "Like any American, he is innocent until proven guilty.  Our Army's leaders will not look away from misconduct if it occurred." 

Meanwhile, some of Bergdahl's fellow soldiers have charged that as many as eight U.S. servicemen died on patrols looking for him.  The New York Times reported Wednesday, "But a review of casualty reports and contemporaneous military logs from the Afghanistan war shows that the facts surrounding the eight deaths are far murkier than definitive."   The article points out that the soldiers normally did patrols in the high-risk area.  

With regard to the Gitmo Five, they will remain in Qatar for one year before they are able to leave the country.  Twelve years have passed since they were involved in fighting.  It is unclear what role they will play for the Taliban in the future.

The Afghanistan conflict is America's longest war.  About 2,300 members of the military have died there, and $700 billion has been spent by the U.S. waging the war there over the past dozen years.  There is reason to hope, as a second round of presidential elections will be held in Afghanistan next week.  The country will soon have a democratic transfer power for the first time in its history, and the enigmatic incumbent, Hamid Karzai, will be replaced by anew leader. 

Whatever the outcome, the new government will be fragile.  The Taliban will seek a role in the country's future.  U.S. and Afghan officials have been in secret talks with the Taliban about the post-war future.  While administration officials don't link the Bergdahl exchange to a bigger peace deal, it may have been an important first step toward a larger agreement between the parties.

For sure, Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl will have a lot to answer for when he is well enough to be questioned by the military.  And the White House is busy defending its unnecessarily messy communications with congress prior to the exchange.  The administration has opened itself up to Republican indignation and righteous platitudes.  Of course, the midterm elections are just around the corner.

Just imagine what the Republicans would have done to the president had Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl died in the hands of the Taliban.  

Crimea: The End Game

The Crimean Parliament has announced that it will hold a referendum March 16 on whether Crimea should join the Russian Federation.  If Crimeans vote to support such a move, it will give Russian President Vladimir Putin just the pretext he is looking for to annex Crimea and, therefore, to create an even bigger crisis for the West.

Of course, President Putin did not orchestrate the Ukrainian crisis as part of a scheme to retake Crimea.  He felt threatened by Ukraine's growing desire to become closer to the West, and he reacted when his puppet, former Ukrainian president Viktor F. Yanukovych, fled to Russia.  Furthermore, he defended his actions with lies.  For instance, his claim that ethnic Russians living in Ukraine were in danger.

Crimea, which had historically been part of Russia, was gifted in 1954 to Ukraine by Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. Sixty percent of the Crimean population is ethnic Russian.  Russia maintains a strategically important naval base on the Crimean peninsula, its gateway to the Black Sea.   The Crimean economy is heavily dependent on the Russians.

Given this context, it is hard to understand why some Republicans are blaming President Barack Obama for this crisis.  Could it be politics?  Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has been bitter since he lost to then Senator Obama in the 2008 Presidential Election.  He has since been harshly critical of Obama, who he calls "feckless."  "(Obama) does not understand that Vladimir Putin is an old KGB colonel bent on restoration of the Soviet empire. ...This president has never understood it," McCain said. 

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a close friend of McCain's, has lambasted the president as weak and indecisive.  For Graham everything ties back to a favorite Republican meme. "It started with Benghazi," Graham said. "When you kill Americans and nobody pays a price, you invite this type of aggression. I think Putin believes Obama is really all talk and no action. And unless we push back soon, the worse is yet to come." 

Former Republican New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani seemed truly praiseworthy of the Russian president -- as if America would be better off if Putin in charge. "He makes a decision and he executes it, quickly. Then everybody reacts. That's what you call a leader," he told Fox News.  "President Obama, he's got to think about it. He's got to go over it again. He's got to talk to more people about it."  

But this crisis is not President Obama's fault.  Nor was it President George W. Bush's fault when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008.  Nor was it President Lyndon Johnson's fault when the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia.  Nor was it President Eisenhower's fault when the Soviets invaded Hungary.

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are working with Western allies to create a diplomatic solution for Ukraine and an "off ramp" for Russia.  Ukraine has been surprisingly restrained given the circumstances.  And, while a few shots have been fired by Russian soldiers, no one has been killed since the protests last month.

The Ukrainian crisis has nothing to do with Benghazi, nor is it the result of a weak American president.  Now the question is will Putin really want to take the off ramp or deescalate tensions?  Or might he be inclined to play this chess match out in a different way? 

Crimea votes to join Russia, and invites Putin to take over.  Putin sends in additional troops to "protect" the Crimean (nee Russian) people from the Ukrainians.  After much heated diplomatic negotiations and military threats, Crimea rejoins Russia, and Crimean Tartars and other minorities are suppressed.  Meanwhile, Ukraine elects a new "independent" government and receives billions of dollars in aid from the West.

Putin is an opportunist who wants to rebuild the former Russian empire.  He believes that the "...demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical disaster of the century."  Of course, Crimea is where legendary Russian Grigory Potemkin constructed his famous "Potemkin Villages" in 1787 to impress Russian Empress Catherine II.   They are now a symbol of deceit, something that the Russian leader has mastered.

Cruz Control

Texas Senator Ted Cruz is rallying the conservative base of the Republican Party with a simple message.  "A significant amount of Republicans assume, with an impasse, that President Obama will never ever give up his principles, so Republicans have to give up theirs," Cruz said Tuesday evening at a town hall meeting. "If you have an impasse, you know -- one side or the other has to blink. How do we win this fight? Don't blink."   But the ambitious Cruz knows better, and so do many in the Republican Party.  

The ever-cocksure Cruz has set his sites on defunding Obamacare at all costs.  "Under no circumstances will I vote for a continuing resolution that funds even one penny of Obamacare," Cruz said in his town hall remarks.  But a continuing resolution is necessary to provide funds for the federal government to operate.  If Congress fails to act in a timely manner it risks shutting down the government.

A growing number of leading Republicans are opposed to this strategy because they believe that the GOP will be blamed for the consequences.   "I think it's the dumbest idea I've ever heard of," Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., said last month.  "I'm for stopping Obamacare, but shutting down the government will not stop Obamacare," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told a Kentucky town hall meeting earlier this month.  And Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., commissioned a Congressional Research Service report that shows that the health care law would get its funding even if the rest of the government shuts down.

Former John McCain presidential campaign aide Nicolle Wallace said on MSNBC Wednesday,  “The reason we’re going to lose this debate about defunding Obamacare is because we don’t occupy the White House."  She added, “We don’t have the ability to pass laws and then sign them. The best way to win this fight is to elect a Republican president.”  Wallace also denounced Cruz for doing "a whole lot of fear mongering" and being "intellectually dishonest" when he was asked at a recent event about impeaching the president.  She said Cruz responded, "Because we don't have the votes (in Congress)."  Wallace bluntly corrected the senator, "The true answer, the intellectually honest answer: Because he’s not committed an impeachable offense."

Senator Cruz is on a crusade to become president.  He has deftly deflected criticism that he may not qualify because he was born in Canada.  Most constitutional scholars appear to agree he does in fact qualify because his mother is American, though it says nothing about persons with a dual citizenship.  Cruz said in a statement Monday,  "Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship. Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I'm an American by birth and as a U.S. Senator, I believe I should be only an American."  Ironically, President Obama's qualifications for office are still questioned by some who wrongly believe he was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii, even though his mother was American.   Perhaps leading "Birther" mogul Donald Trump should make a ruling? 

Bertrand Russell once wrote, "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are always cocksure and the intelligent are always filled with doubt. "  But Senator Cruz is not stupid, and he knows it.  He exudes self-confidence and swagger.  Famed Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, who taught Cruz, told The Daily Caller this past May, “Without a doubt he is among the smartest students I’ve ever had… I’ve had great students but he has to be at the top of anyone’s short list, in terms of raw brain power.” 

Senator Cruz knows that if he can win over the conservative wing of his party with stirring speeches, he will be in a formidable position for the 2016 Republican presidential primaries.  This strategy may indeed secure him the nomination.  However, Cruz is smart enough to realize that he will have to move more to the center on health care, immigration, and social issues in order to attract the number of independent voters needed to win the White House.   No doubt, he will have no problem doing that. 

Conservatives, take off your blinders, and don't blink!

The Same Old Party

President Barack Obama will give his State of the Union address Tuesday evening, the first of his second-term.  American voters may have hoped that their elected officials had gotten the message that they should put partisanship aside and work together solve the myriad of problems facing the nation.  Not so fast!

The president has his hands full.  Unless Washington acts, in three weeks the country will be hit with the “sequester”, mandatory cuts to the federal budget that will be devastating to the U.S. economy because several hundred thousand people will be furloughed or lose their jobs.  Instead of working to avoid disaster, members of both parties are busy blaming the mess on their opposition.  

Everyone in Washington thinks the deficits are a serious problem.  But Republicans, having gone along with raising tax rates on the rich to temporarily avoid the "fiscal cliff", are demanding deep cuts in the federal budget, especially in entitlements and social programs, while rejecting raising any additional revenues.   The president is proposing raising some more revenues by closing tax loopholes that favor the wealthiest, along with making targeted budget cuts.  The GOP has rejected his “balanced approach”.  

While the country has been careening from fiscal crisis to fiscal crisis, Republicans, who are still licking their wounds from last November's election defeats, are in a period of reflection and reexamination.   One outcome has been for the party to begin reaching out to Latinos, African Americans, Asians, and women, all demographics the party did poorly in last election.   

Republicans had been the party of "self-deportation" and impregnable border fences.  However, earlier this week House Majority Leader Eric Cantor actually did a flip on the Dream Act when he said the U.S. should, "provide an opportunity for legal residence and citizenship for those who were brought to this country as children and who know no other home."  He also called for, "creating a workable guest worker program."  Meanwhile, Republican spinmeisters have hailed Florida Senator Marco Rubio as the leading voice for Hispanic Americans and immigration, while saying the president has failed to lead on the issue.  But Latinos won't be fooled. 

Immigration reform and gun control have been among the many hot topics consuming most legislators’ attention these past few weeks.  But the largely Republican opposition to any truly meaningful steps on either issue is certain to assure only minimal changes will be enacted.  

Meanwhile, Republican Senator Lindsay Graham has threatened to block two of President Obama's cabinet nominations until he receives satisfactory answers from the White House about what happened during the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, last September which left four Americans dead.  The appointees, Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense, and John Brennan for CIA Director, were subjected to tough, some say personal, questions in their respective committee appearances.  Republican Senators John McCain and Rand Paul had previously made fools of themselves trying to beat up on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her testimony on Benghazi. 

While most everyone expects the president's nominees to be confirmed, leading Republicans are coming out of the woodwork to talk trash.  Former Vice President Dick Cheney criticized President Obama to a gathering of Wyoming Republicans, "Frankly, what he has appointed are second-rate people."  These words from a second-rate political hack who misled the world to start a war in Iraq, who authorized illegal torture, and who was a major player in the greatest recession since the Great Depression.  Remember, Cheney can't shoot straight. 

The Republican Party is out of touch with mainstream America.  They want to make deep cuts in federal spending, even though similar austerity efforts by England and other European have been an economic disaster.  They are against banning assault weapons and high capacity ammunition clips.  They are opposed to a path to citizenship for America's eleven million illegal immigrants.  They are on the wrong side of most social issues.  They are the architects of restrictions on voting meant to suppress African-Americans, Latinos and the elderly, who are largely Democratic voters.

The GOP can try to repackage their party by reaching out to all demographics.  But for many Americans the GOP is the same old party.