2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumTed Cruz is dangerous: Why liberals scoff at his campaign at their peril
No, the Texas senator isn't likely to capture the GOP ticket. But his brand of conservatism poses its own threatSOPHIA A. MCCLENNEN, ALTERNET
Since Ted Cruz first announced his candidacy, much has been made of his chances of winning, his arrogance and his extreme conservative views. But most of the controversy over his candidacy centers on his lying.
It is no surprise to any of us that politicians lie. We generally assume they stretch the truth to get elected, to denigrate their political foes, and to bolster their images. But Cruz may just represent one of the biggest liars in recent history. In fact, he may be a whole new form of political liar.
The Daily Beast reports that, Cruzs Politifact track record for publicly asserted falsehoods is the second-highest among front-runners, totaling 56 percent of all statements theyve looked at. And Matthew Rozsa tell us that Googling Ted Cruz lies pulls back an astonishing 7,890,000 results, and on Twitter, the two phrases are basically synonymous.
The trouble with this angle on Cruzs misstatements is that it presumes that Cruz is, in fact, lying. But lying depends on the liar knowing that what he is saying is false. Cruz shows no signs of such awareness. As Ann Marie Cox points out in her survey of Cruzs lies, theres more going on here than just a politicians twisting of the truth or a partisan spin on data. She wonders whether it is time to take seriously the idea that he really believes what he is saying. There are objective falsehoods that show Cruz could just be looking at a different set of data. Other, more telling whoppers show that Cruz isnt just looking at different data, hes living in a different universe.
more
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/07/ted_cruz_is_dangerous_why_liberals_scoff_at_his_campaign_at_their_peril_partner/
lame54
(35,262 posts)Scrabbleddie
(67 posts)The next pres will be wrapped in the flag
talking about democracy and representing few.
Certainly not liberals anyway.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Thought he was a joke, couldn't believe when he won the primary, much less wound up in the White House. So I try not to underestimate any goofball on the right, no matter how idiotic or insane their positions.
XenaAmazon
(37 posts)Something ALL people in the US should consider deeply troubling!
Here's my little example. I ran into someone, an acquaintance, who told me, "We have to get rid of this Muslim terrorist in the White House."
I replied, "The Republicans are not an alternative." To which she replied, "Why not try something new?" I pointed out that George W. Bush had us on the edge of a 2nd Great Depression, so the Tea Party doesn't have anything "new" to offer. Her reply was predictable. She didn't believe it. (How can people be blind to hard, economic reality?) This woman is working poor!
Economics, unlike entertainment, is pretty straight-forward. IOW, one doesn't need to be a Democrat to recognize the economic crisis caused by George W. Bush.
Democrats, however, share a lot of the blame. By letting Bush off-the-hook and refusing to pursue an investigation & probable prosecution, voters were left to believe that Bush's reported misdeeds were nothing more serious than a petty political vendetta by his enemies.
In a recent clip, Rachel Maddow lamented the fact that right-wing media "makes stuff up". Yes, it does! It's not just a few people who believe the outright falsehoods. Look at the Fox's ratings and translate those numbers to votes!
We are all stuck in the alternate right-wing reality. Americans don't recognize how far right the US has drifted. Of course, there are red flags: just look at the number of Americans incarcerated! (And the racial make-up of those in prison).
Canadians see it. So do Europeans. Our cousins in the UK lament the fact that US gun violence is beginning to infiltrate Europe.
It's said that a free press is essential to a healthy democracy. It's no wonder, then, the Reagan Admin set about dismantling the regulations that prevented media monopolies. Without that, the right could not have overtaken AM Radio. Roger Ailes moved in to purchase Fox to enable the rise of the far right.
I don't know what the answer is. More than half of the electorate is controlled by propaganda: outright falsehoods! We have a serious problem.
If we don't confront this issue, our freedoms are doomed. 3 SCOTUS seats are in play in 2016. At least 2 of those seats are held by 'liberals' (moderates). No picture are necessary to illustrate the crisis that would occur if those seats are awarded to a Thomas or Scalia.
It's a safe bet that the Koch brothers (the John Birch Society with a makeover) are putting significant resources into 2016. It's the best climate in decades for a takeover by the far right.
phantom power
(25,966 posts)Even when winguts lose, they win. Because they never shut up, and they never give up. They just keep pushing their ideas, until people stop seeing them, like fish in water.
72 percent of Americans believe big government is a greater threat than big business or big labor.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-goldilocks-question-by-bloggersrus.html
Instead of leveraging their vocal base to move the Overton Window to the left, the Democratic Party shits on them.
Cosmocat
(14,558 posts)Even when they are wrong, every god darned time, they dont shut up.
Meanwhile, the democratic party has thrown the towel in.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)TeamPooka
(24,206 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)for President in the past 50 years, including Rudy Ghouliani.
Candidates have to at least pretend to be nice guys. Cruz does not wear well with people who don't like a-holes.
Being an a-hole works with a certain segment of the Republican base, but their powers that be won't allow an unelectable a-hole to get their nomination.