Cruz and Clinton Show Their True Colors

Right From the Start

Right From the Start

Last week, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) was extended an invitation to speak during prime time before the Republican National Convention as it endorsed Donald Trump as its presidential nominee.  To the surprise of many at the convention – but not to those of us who have observed Mr. Cruz over his brief career – he used his time not to endorse Mr. Trump but rather to encourage voters to vote their conscience and vote for someone who would uphold the constitution – meaning him and only him.  Mr. Cruz is, as John Bright once said of Horace Greeley:
“He is a self-made man and worships his creator.”

I don’t like Mr. Cruz – never have.  In a column in early February I wrote:
“He is a small-minded man given to petty grievances and demagogic and personal attacks – it is no wonder that he is universally disliked in the United States Senate.  He rivals former President Bill Clinton (D) in parsing words and dissembling the truth.  He is a divisive character in a time in which we need healing.  Basically, he is Barack-Obama-on-the-right.”
A month later I wrote:
“Hidden from view was the growing reputation that Mr. Cruz was gaining in the United States Senate as an orator who played fast and loose with the truth; as a back-stabber willing to sacrifice his colleagues for his own ambitions; and as an “ally” that could never be trusted.  When those things began to be made public, Mr. Cruz promptly blamed others and declared that he was running against the “establishment” and that the criticisms were merely the “slings and arrows” that he had to endure from the powerful.
“But that characteristic of moral relativism carried over into his presidential campaign.  His inner circle was composed of people, like him, who would do anything to win.  His campaign literature (ads, flyers, and speeches) began attacking other candidates using innuendo, half-truths and outright lies.”
*         *          *
“When confronted with these facts, Mr. Cruz dissembled.  He embraced moral relativism.  He never answered for his own wrongdoing but rather said that others were worse.  In an interview this past Sunday with FOX News, when the host Chris Wallace read him the litany of his half-truths and dirty tricks, Mr. Cruz accused Mr. Wallace of reading from a Trump press release.  And when Mr. Wallace quickly disabused Mr. Cruz of that notion and asked for an answer, Mr. Cruz instead asserted that others had done similar things and had not been called to account.”
Mr. Cruz lost the nomination, and for good reason.  And that good reason was on display again in his speech before the Republican National Convention.  Everything about his speech was contrived and everything about the crowd’s response was real.  He was booed widely.  He was criticized by politicians, pundits and contributors uniformly.  No one rose to his defense.
Mr. Trump missed an opportunity to crush Mr. Cruz and to demonstrate his efforts to build party unity.  Mr. Trump could have simply shrugged off Mr. Cruz’s comments and allowed that Mr. Cruz was, is, and always will be, his own worst enemy.  Instead Mr. Trump engaged in a fiery denunciation and promised to create a superPAC in an attempt to deny Mr. Cruz re-election to the Senate in 2018.  He needn’t have done either – those efforts by others were already underway by the time Mr. Cruz left the auditorium.
*          *          *
Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State under President Barack Obama has been running for president forever.  She lost to Mr. Obama in the Democrat primary in 2008 but has never stopped planning, organizing and manipulating to succeed him in 2016.  So completely did she dominate the national and state Democrat parties that she was from the very beginning of 2015 the “presumptive nominee” of the Democrat Party.
But Ms. Clinton cheats.  She cheats at everything.  She lies about everything.  And so cheating in an effort to secure the Democrat nomination came as second nature – actually probably first nature.
First, she secured control of the national Democratic National Committee (DNC) in order to control appointments and command loyalty from the multitude of special interest groups.  Next, she used that influence to control the appointment of the so-called “superdelegates” – a group initially created to ensure that the party bosses could not control the nominating process but which has morphed into precisely the instrument by which the party bosses do control the process by controlling who becomes a superdelegate.  Before the first ballot was cast in the first Democrat primary, Ms. Clinton had virtually secured the nomination through the use of the superdelegates, the overwhelming majority of which were pledged to her from the very beginning.
And now we know that in addition to rigging the delegate selection, Ms. Clinton’s loyalists at the DNC were actively involved in ensuring that no other candidate – principally Sen. Bernie Sanders (Socialist – VT) – would get a fair shake.  And for Ms. Clinton there is no loyalist quite like Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL), the recently deposed head of the DNC.  Ms. Wasserman Schultz is easily the most hateful person to ever head a national party.  When her mouth opens she spews venom in every direction.  There is no white, male, or Republican individual about whom she cannot find the most vile things to say.  She is so vicious she makes pitbulls cower.
During the primary season, Mr. Sanders complained bitterly about the scarcity and timing of the debates for the Democrat candidates.  We now know that Ms. Wasserman-Schultz and other officials at the DNC were responsible and they did it deliberately to minimize positive exposure for Ms. Clinton’s opponents and negative exposure for her given her propensity for lies and gaffs.  Ms. Wasserman-Schultz and her colleagues at the DNC sought to paint Mr. Sanders as an atheist and diminish his Jewish heritage.  And there is likely to be more to come – much more.
The reaction to yet another disclosure of Ms. Clinton’s propensity for lying and cheating is taking place at the Democrat National Convention in Philadelphia.  Reuters report Tuesday:
“Chaos broke out ahead of the U.S. Democratic Party convention on Monday as protesters jeered the party chairwoman over leaked emails showing Democratic officials worked to undermine Bernie Sanders in his presidential primary battle with Hillary Clinton.
“Hours before the start of the four-day gathering to nominate Clinton for the White House, outgoing Democratic National Committee head Debbie Wasserman Schultz struggled to be heard above boos as she spoke to the Democratic delegation from her home state, Florida.”
In a further attempt to mollify disaffected Democrats and Sanders’ supporters, the Democrat National Committee offered a further apology:
“On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email. These comments do not reflect the values of the DNC or our steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.  The DNC does not — and will not — tolerate disrespectful language exhibited toward our candidates.  Individual staffers have also rightfully apologized for their comments, and the DNC is taking appropriate action to ensure it never happens again.”
Who believes that?  Nobody will be punished.  Nobody, with the exception of Ms. Wasserman-Schultz will lose their job and the Clinton machine immediately hired her (organized crime always protects its own) – thus confirming what everyone suspected.  And even if they are to be punished it comes too late.
Given how close the Democrat presidential primary races was between Ms. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, were it not for the cheating – not for “thumb on the scale – there is every probability the Mr. Sanders would have won the primary and Ms. Clinton would have once again lost the big prize – primarily because of her own dishonesty.  And now all of those Democrat operatives can be assured that the Clinton machine will take care of them – unless.
There’s not a lot of difference between Mr. Cruz and Ms. Clinton.  Let’s hope that the general election provides them one more commonality – LOSER.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in 2016 Presidential Election, Bernie Sanders, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Donald Trump, Ethics, Government corruption, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz | 38 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Conservatively Speaking

    Ted Cruz, to wit a parody of Mr Ed. He should take to the pathos of Oregon’s switch hitting Wayne Morse, butt of course.

    As for Hillary Clinton, she’s a no brainier for what’s left of US, to wit, indict her now and udder moral misfits before her metastasis cancers back into the White House and steals more Tea service than what’s evident in China.

    • DavidAppell

      If Cruz were the Republican nominee, you and Larry Huss and every other ideological-only Republican would be falling all over yourselves to find excuses to support him.

      And you know it.

      • Conservatively Speaking

        Cruz over Clinton of course, the udder no-brainer is what SHE appears, unindicted.“`HRC, for the record, tarting with Benghazi and recounting back over the years, best viewed as a great American travesty.“` Seems obvious, as well, she’d like to see her visage token from the unofficial $3 dollar Slick Willy and plastered on the $20 USTB, ahead of Harriett Tubman.

  • Bob Clark

    Europe is headed towards civil war as segments of the religion of Islam chop priests heads off, and Sharia law is allowed to operate alongside the conventions of western culture. And the DNC offers us Kumbaya. This is the same ignorance of history only in reverse as that of invading Iraq ignoring the British experience of the early 1900s.

    Middle east culture tried taking out Europe many centuries ago, and it’s modern day version simply can’t be handled by Obama’s and the DNC’s Kumbaya. It doesn’t necessarily mean war but rather at least putting some borders on unbridled immigration.

    • DavidAppell

      Don’t be an idiot — Europe is in no way heading towards a civil war.

      Europe knows things about war of which dumb Americans — just like you, Bob — haven’t no clue.

      • O P U to you gnu

        “Dumb Americans” jackass ewe assay Mr overripe Appell. My oh my, howl clevaire to bray so, Mr nutso Nice forum ship loading from your own anal mall farmyard fomenting ofNew World Odors.

  • DavidAppell

    Larry has abandoned every principle he ever had to suck up to Donald Trump.

    You have to wonder who he sees in the mirror these days.

    • MrBill

      I’m not sure how you get that out of this article. His only mention of Trump is how he reacted to Cruz’s speech at the RNC convention.

      • DavidAppell

        Larry supports a man who mocked a disabled person.

        Larry Huss is the kind of person who would support Donald Trump even if Trump kicked Larry’s mother in the teeth. Because for Larry, ideology is more important than any principle he pretends to have.

        You?

        • Dick Winningstad

          And you support a woman who covered for her rapist husband and is bought by big business.

          • DavidAppell

            More lies, Dick. You have an endless supply of them, don’t you?

          • Donkey shame ewe libtards

            Appell kibitzes like fleas on feathers of kookaburras calling them partisans and/or murderous crows calling to dose attending the DNC Hiillary CONflagraton. Bastogne nuts to em!

          • Dick Winningstad

            Says the liar about the 2nd Amendment and Reagan crime rates.

          • DavidAppell

            Dick, stop it. Have some dignity, at least, at long last. Admit your errors, like a man, and stop thrashing about.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Says the liar David when addressing the 2nd Amendment and Reagan crime stats.

          • DavidAppell

            Suddenly you’re concerned about donations from “big business?”

            Try not to make a fool of yourself.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Perhaps you should take a look at what you’ve said. Only subsidies, as you define them, are good that you approve of. I am not in favor of them at all. A flat tax would be better. And the government sticking to the basics instead of buying votes with favors. But then as a liberal that may be a foreign concept to you.

          • DavidAppell

            You can’t even admit to your own huge subsidies. That is just sad.

            PS: A flat tax is regressive.

          • Dick Winningstad

            So what? Subsidies should be regressive too in your eyes then as they only favor the prosperous.

          • DavidAppell

            US subsidies are far from regressive.

            For example, the vast majority of the home mortgage interest deduction goes to the affluent and rich.

            Is that fair, Dick?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Hmmm…. You are claiming that home mortgage deductions are not regressive. And yet you say only the wealthy benefit. While I would agree they are not regressive, as a lot of $35k/yr people are buying houses with mortgages, you are not bolstering your argument much here.

        • Appell’s bin sauced again

          Row! Whap another DNC liberale sic ho ewe peer to be.

    • Dick Winningstad

      And Mr. Appell has abandoned every principle he ever had to suck up to the criminal Ms. Clinton.

      • DavidAppell

        Why aren’t you man enough to admit you lied and made things up here?

        I don’t even see the point of responding to you any more, knowing now that you lie with ease.

        • Dick Winningstad

          Says the liar about Reagan crime rates and the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

          • DavidAppell

            Now you’re denying basic factual data, too?

            http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeTrendsInOneVar.cfm

            You fit right in with the Republicans — factually challenged and at war with science.

          • Dick Winningstad

            No your numbers are wrong as you used 1992 when Reagan was in office from 1981-1989. You lied here.

          • DavidAppell

            A new president doesn’t affect change immediately, do they?

            And it was still a Republican in charge. Crime is now half.

          • Cheap buy birdland standards

            Commission DavidAppell sic, [lout] on consignment to find what remains of Judge Crater, Amelia Earhart, James Hoffa, Michael Rockefeller, MAL 370 and BHO’s Kenya birth certificate and school records.“`At what cost accord-able? Say perhaps the amount of another Obama family vacation and an uncorking of the Clinton’s whitewater fine blue cheese dressing at a Chelsea honorarium @ a Clinton PACthouse.

          • Dick Winningstad

            And yet liberals blame Bush for 9/11. Since you are inconsistent, you are still a lair given your parameters.

          • DavidAppell

            Wasn’t Bush president during 9/11? Correct me if I’m wrong…..

            Wasn’t this threat brought up at a meeting at his vacation home?

          • Dick Winningstad

            You are willing to change parameters in your argument for your convenience. So you are a liar.

  • DavidAppell

    “William Inboden, who served on the NSC during the George W. Bush administration, said Trump’s comments [today] were “tantamount to treason.”

    Politico 7/27/16,
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-russia-clinton-emails-treason-226303#ixzz4Feje778u

    Larry Huss apparently supports treason.

    • Smokey the Bare

      To wit DavidAppell tilts toward an Obama posthumous pardon of Mary Surratt and immediate release of John Hinckley Jr.

    • Dick Winningstad

      And the NYT with actual release of the secret Pentagon Papers should have been tried for treason instead of winning a Pulitzer Prize then?
      What did Mr. Trump actually do? Seems all he did was suggest if the Russians had the emails, which the Dems say they do, the Russians should release them. What treason? How is that giving aid and comfort to the enemy (art.3 sec.3)? And why should we be concerned about what the left says about Mr. Trump?

      • DavidAppell

        Now you’re against freedom of the press!

        What other parts of the Constitution do you and Trump want to discard?

        • Waterloo His Bone’s Apart

          Wail spoken by a point canard columnist for whats Left of US travailing gravely situated in Madam Bovary’s reproductive arts.

  • Blue cheesed Benghazzi sauce

    Picture ’em as: “American Gothic” – WJC wearing a blue dress and HRC, albeit hands unseen, pose-ably rubbing the green of the Clinton Foundation.““Or howl about Dumb and Dumber, material twins wearing T-shirts counterpointing to each other as “I’m With Stupid.”

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)