From: nytimes.com, by Frank Bruni, on Nov 14, 2015, see the article HERE.
Yes, this article is from the New York Times (gasp), but since it was about Ted Cruz, I read it anyway.
I post it here to illustrate the left-wing’s personal attack machine in action and to give me an opportunity to offer some rebuttal to the Unicorn dung that Mr. Bruni is selling to his New York Times readers (who we know are non-partisan and fair-minded to a fault). This caricature of Senator Ted Cruz is what Mr. Bruni wants promote to those who already have a negative opinion of any conservative, and especially a Texas conservative. The blue italicized comments interspersed with Mr. Bruni’s original verbiage reflect my own personal opinion – Garnet92.
THE venerated political strategist David Axelrod once described a presidential campaign as “an M.R.I. for the soul.” It winds up being precisely that.
Venerated by whom? Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Frank Bruni? Certainly not many conservative Republicans.
But in its earliest stages, a presidential campaign is more like a costume ball.
And right now, perhaps no candidate wears a mask as thick as Ted Cruz’s.
Uhhh, how about Hillary Clinton? She has a long verifiable history of disdain for the truth and she fancies herself as a champion of the “little” people. One question: how much is she worth? Fifty million? Poor Ted Cruz is worth only $1.5 million. I challenge anyone to compare the quantity of proven lies attributable to both. Who’s wearing the thickest mask? There is no contest.
He had it on during last week’s debate, when he lashed out at any Republican who gave any ground on illegal immigration.
“The politics of it would be very, very different if a bunch of lawyers or bankers were crossing the Rio Grande,” he thundered, and there was no mistaking the contempt he meant to communicate for those elite, out-of-touch professionals.
Did you notice that Bruni (conveniently) omitted the next thing that Cruz said where he included those with degrees in journalism along with the lawyers and bankers? Mr. Bruni has an MS degree in Journalism from Columbia. Didn’t he want to be included in with the bankers and lawyers? Or by omitting that fact is he admitting that Cruz is right?
But where does that contempt leave him?
He’s a lawyer, with a degree from Harvard, which was his steppingstone to a conventionally ambitious Supreme Court clerkship.
Where does that contempt leave his wife, Heidi?
She’s a banker, on leave from a job with Goldman Sachs in Houston, where she ran the wealth management unit, which focuses on clients with an average net worth of $40 million.
This is a subtle attempt to imply something negative about Cruz and his wife. Yes, she is a banker, so what? He didn’t crucify all bankers, he just observed that lawyers, bankers, and journalists would be up in arms if illegals were taking their jobs – almost certainly a true statement. And he graduated from Harvard Law – that can’t possible be considered a slam since the left’s favorite son, Obama, did as well. So far, Mr. Bruni hasn’t laid a glove on Cruz.
To hear Cruz talk — or, rather, grandstand — he’s the ultimate outsider, the consummate underdog, in perpetual conflict with the ruling class and in perfect harmony with common folk.
There’s rarely mention of Harvard. Or of Princeton, where he got his college diploma.
Just curious here – how often did Barack Obama mention his Harvard Law education, or how many times has Hillary Clinton mentioned her Yale Law degree? Cruz’s lack of emphasis on his education is no more reprehensible than Obama or Clinton also “neglecting” to mention their Ivy League credentials. Candidates wanting to appeal to the masses seldom emphasize their blue ribbon education.
There’s rarely mention of his stint in the policy shop of George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign, a dynastic enterprise that was as pure an expression of the Republican establishment’s wishes as could be.
There’s rarely mention of his role in recruiting John Roberts, who would later get a seat on the Supreme Court, to the legal team doing battle for Bush during the 2000 Florida recount. No, that would undercut his rants now about Roberts’s insufficiently pure conservatism as the high court’s chief justice.
So Cruz was wrong about Roberts’ insufficient conservatism – so were just about all of those conservatives who supported him for Chief Justice; he’s been a disappointment to many conservatives.
It would emphasize how well connected Cruz is. And it would contradict his pose for the presidential race, in which he’s the prairie populist, replete with Western iconography and attire.
Cruz has lived in Texas since he was four, isn’t that reason enough to lean towards Western iconography and attire? Is there something wrong with that? Of course, to a New Yorker, the answer is “yes.” All Texans are knuckle-dragging Neanderthals too ignorant to spell “cat” if you spot them the “c” and the “t.”
The current chapter of the 2016 contest has brought fresh focus to the fibs that candidates tell about themselves, the tweaks they make to their biographies, the misimpressions they promote.
Did Ben Carson really try to stab someone during a rage-filled youth? Was Hillary Clinton sincere about joining the Marines, or is this assertion like that Bosnian sniper fire that she hallucinated?
Once again, Mr. Bruni attempts to imply that Cruz has been “telling fibs, tweaking his biography, or encouraging ‘misimpressions'” by including him in with some (valid) questions about Hillary Clinton and Ben Carson. Why hasn’t Mr. Bruni enumerated those fibs, tweaks to his biography, or ‘misimpressions’ that Cruz promoted? That was a rhetorical question, we know why – because he can’t.
Embellishment is the order of the day, to a point where you begin to wonder if Brian Williams was less the exception than the rule; if it’s human instinct to aggrandize (and to start believing the aggrandizement); and if success on the scale that most of the presidential contenders have achieved involves especially fanciful myth making, also known as shamelessness.
But the lies aren’t all of the same size, shape and hue. Most of Carson’s fall into the category of gilding (or glooming) reality, of overdramatizing the humdrum, while Clinton and Jeb Bush sometimes play characters different from who they really are. She: “dead broke” upon leaving the White House. He: a political rebel prepared to disrupt the status quo.
Cruz outperforms either of them, a former college debate whiz who is practiced at instantaneously constructing an argument for an assigned viewpoint that may not be his own.
By saying that “Cruz outperforms either of them,” because of the context, Bruni implies that Ted has embellished some of his biography or credentials. Indeed Cruz does outperform Clinton or Jeb Bush – but not in lying or constructing a false facade as his choice of words implies. Cruz outperforms them in debating skills. Bruni is doing his best to associate Cruz with the pejorative term “embellishment.”
That skill surely came in handy when he ran for a Senate seat in 2012 and saw that the best lane available to him was marked Tea Party. He became the Tea Party incarnate, turning Washington into a four-letter word: a four-letter word, mind you, that he couldn’t wait to make his second home and use as a stage upon which to strut and preen.
It’s obvious that Mr. Bruni has had little experience with individuals with strongly held beliefs – like Ted Cruz. Cruz has been conservative since high school and embodied the philosophy of the Tea Party before it was a movement. He didn’t choose to be conservative because it was expedient, he fit the Tea Party mold because that’s who he is. And as for “strutting and preening,” that is an obvious attempt to demean a man whose character and intelligence far surpass that of someone who may actually, literally strut and preen, i.e., Mr. Bruni.
HIS greatest distinction as a lawmaker thus far has been his readiness to pursue lost causes that draw attention from a news media that he supposedly loathes, and to skirmish with party colleagues in a way that similarly puts him front and center on TV and prompts headlines about him.
Again, Mr. Bruni simply can’t understand someone of character who would fight for a cause because he believed in it – knowing all the while that it would fail. We Texans sent Ted Cruz to Washington to rein in an out-of-control federal government led by Barack Obama and to balance out the influence the “business as usual” Republicans held in Congress. He’s done just that and we applaud him for it.
His storytelling is selective. He talks voluminously about his father’s arrival in Texas from Cuba, presenting a harrowing, inspiring immigration narrative that’s probably not the full truth and glides over many oddities and unanswered questions.
He talks less voluminously about his mother and about Canada, which is where she gave birth to him. She’d grown up in Delaware — not exactly the prairie — and gone to college at Rice University, which is sometimes referred to as the Harvard of the South. Not only that, she majored in mathematics. That was hardly the norm for a woman in the 1950s, and it suggests a certain sophistication, even progressiveness.
He emphatically recalls how his father’s embrace of Jesus Christ led him back to his mother — and to him — after his parents had separated.
He tends to skip over the part about his parents eventually divorcing nonetheless. It was his father’s second failed marriage. That detail doesn’t fit Cruz’s moralizing on the subject of holy matrimony. It doesn’t buttress his extravagant lamentations about the tradition-shattering, God-insulting unions of two men or two women.
Wow, talk about a stretch. Comparing Cruz’s opposition to same-sex marriage with the fact that his parents divorced. How does Bruni manage to twist logic to create some sort of paradox there? It’s likely that there are millions of Americans whose parents have divorced yet remain opposed to same-sex marriage. Why is that so hard to understand? And that’s supposed to be a fault of his?
But then his education and his station in life don’t exactly buttress the disdain he heaps on intellectuals and the affinity he claims with the hourly laborers of the world.
During the most recent debate, he twice disparaged the people in Washington who set monetary policy as haughty, disconnected “philosopher-kings.”
From such cunningly chosen, strategically deployed words, you’d never guess that Cruz was known at Harvard Law School for a reluctance to “study with anyone who hadn’t been an undergrad at Harvard, Princeton, or Yale,” according to a 2013 profile of Cruz in GQ by Jason Zengerle.
One of Cruz’s law-school roommates, Damon Watson, told Zengerle: “He said he didn’t want anybody from ‘minor Ivies’ like Penn or Brown.”
Good thing Heidi Cruz got her graduate degree in business administration from Harvard. Or bad thing, depending on your view of marriage to Ted Cruz.
He’s big on American exceptionalism. He’s loquacious on American sovereignty. But after that all-night, 21-hour protest of Obamacare — you know, when he stood on the Senate floor and managed to quote country-western lyrics, muse about “Duck Dynasty” and read “Green Eggs and Ham” aloud — he was photographed being driven away in a B.M.W.
Give me a break. The term “grasping at straws” comes to mind. Once again, an implication, not a direct statement of anything untoward, just an implication that because Cruz was being transported in a BMW, that he’s not genuine. Believe it or not Mr. Bruni, ordinary people also drive BMWs. I’ve owned two, my son had one, and my daughter currently drives one – and we are hardly wealthy, elite snobs – we’re ordinary middle class voters (who just happen to like Ted Cruz).
What a deluxe chariot for such a down-home guy, but how true to the disparities between his branding and his reality.
He has a pair of favorite cowboy boots, as anyone involved in a masquerade like his must. But they’re not the usual leather. They’re black ostrich skin.
That actually surprises me. I would have expected peacock feathers.
Well there, I’ve had my say. I don’t know why Mr. Bruni felt the need to slyly ridicule Ted Cruz – between the lines mostly. Perhaps it’s because the two men appear to be totally out-of-sync with each other. Mr. Bruni attended the University of North Carolina and Columbia while Cruz attended Princeton and Harvard. Mr. Bruni’s resume includes being a food critic and an op-ed writer for the New York Times, Mr. Cruz has been Texas’ Solicitor General, a U.S. Senator, and now a candidate for President. Mr. Bruni has suffered with Bulimia while Mr. Cruz is fond of Tex-Mex, lots of it, and keeps it down. Mr. Bruni was a finalist for a Pulitzer, but didn’t win, while Sen. Cruz is not yet a finalist for POTUS, but is closing fast. Mr. Cruz is married, with two daughters while Mr. Bruni is openly-gay. These two men are not likely to meet for a couple of beers (unless it’s at gunpoint).
So, there you have it. A brief insight into the “other side’s” view of Ted Cruz. I hope that you’ve been exposed to what can be expected from the liberal left; this was only a taste.