web analytics
October 26, 2016 / 24 Tishri, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘cruz’

Ted Cruz Drops Out, Trump Supports Settlement Expansion

Wednesday, May 4th, 2016

Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz is no longer hoping, apparently, as on Tuesday night he dropped out of the race, following a series of losses that culminated in a 54%-37% loss in Indiana to Donald Trump—who also went over the 1,000 delegate hump.

And just to show he could be on the side of the angels, in an interview with The Daily Mail Tuesday, Trump rejected the idea that a Jewish settlement freeze in Judea and Samaria would bring peace between Israelis and Arabs any sooner. Positioning himself squarely opposite Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration on this subject, he insisted that Israel should continue its construction projects in Judea and Samaria. Trump also declared: “Thousands of missiles being launched into Israel. Who would put up with that? Who would stand for it? I’d love to negotiate peace. But I mean a lasting peace, not a peace that lasts for two weeks and they start launching missiles again.”

Until Indiana, Senator Cruz (R-TX) seemed determined to go all the way to a contested convention in Cleveland this summer, but the losses in five out of five eastern seaboard states and the Indiana defeat apparently had a cumulative effect on the candidate, who no longer saw a path to the nomination for himself.

“From the beginning I’ve said that I would continue on as long as there was a viable path to victory,” Cruz told his campaign workers and fans Tuesday night. “Tonight I’m sorry to say it appears that path has been foreclosed. With a heavy heart but with boundless optimism for the long-term future of our nation, we are suspending our campaign.”

Trump won at least 51 of Indiana’s delegates, giving him 1,047 out of the 1,237 Delegates needed for the Republican nomination. With his chief rival out of the way, Trump is likely to win the 190 delegates he needs to lock the nomination.

It does not mean that Trump is anywhere near easy street come the general elections, with Hillary Clinton leading him by 7 points on average nationally. But Trump has also been the most unpredictable winning candidate in presidential elections history, and 2016 has been the most unpredictable presidential election year in anyone’s memory, so sit back comfortably, order pizza and watch the race with the rest of us.

David Israel

Beyond Politics: Shabbos with Mr. Cruz

Wednesday, April 20th, 2016

I read Nick Muzin’s heartfelt piece about his friend and boss Senator Ted Cruz and Jews and decided to echo it with one of my own experiences with Cruz – from before he was a presidential candidate, or even a senator.

For many years off and on I attended the first day or two of CPAC – the annual massive gathering of American conservatives – in Washington. It started midweek and ran through Saturday night, but, of course, I would have to leave midway to get back to New York before Shabbos.

In 2012, hearing of a group that was bringing a number of Jewish college students to CPAC, I called the leaders and told them that if they would urge the kids to attend, I would organize a private Shabbos program onsite – meals and davening and leining. “SHABBAT@CPAC” was an instant success and Shabbat meal registration is now an option on CPAC’s official program.

That first CPAC Shabbos was revelatory. We hoped for 20-25 people, but ended up with well over 100. (Fortunately, a magnificent spread for the entire Shabbos was supplied by my friend Yanky Brach, who insisted on providing lavish, simcha-worthy food for even more people than that, because “You never know – and you don’t want to turn anybody away from Shabbos!”.) It was all word of mouth. Our suite was tucked away far from the main action – but the word kept spreading and people kept coming. I remember a sublime moment when a bunch of college kids were hustling over before my wife lit candles to help us set up the room – their arrival was preceded by an excited “Shabbos is coming” song echoing down the halls of CPAC.

I remember the guy dressed like he was in a rock band sitting quietly and taking it all in. We were going around the room and introducing ourselves and when it was his turn he stood up and said “This is my first Shabbos meal since my grandfather died when I was seven. I’m 22 now and I’m sitting here thinking of how much I missed. I am going to put Shabbos back in my life.” And, as it turns out, he was in a rock band – a new band playing songs that promote patriotism.

Talk show hosts, campaign operatives, policy wonks, Hill staffers and journalists who otherwise would have had no Shabbos spent hour after hour enjoying a real heimishe Shabbos with divrei Torah, zmiros and, endless, amazing food. Throughout Friday night politicians and pundits came by, drank a l’chaim, said a few words, then headed back to hobnob and socialize at CPAC.

But for me, the standout visitor that Shabbos was a relative unknown. A candidate for the US Senate – outsider and Tea Party darling Ted Cruz.

Mr. Cruz came and sat modestly towards the foot of the long table. But unlike the other politicians, his wasn’t a “drop-by”. He came before Kabbolas Shabbos and he stayed for the meal and he was still there almost three hours later after most of the crowd had gone out to enjoy the more political offerings of CPAC.

At that point, according to the schedule, I was to give a 45 minute shiur on the parsha, just in case anyone wanted to stick around. There was a group of perhaps 20 or so mostly observant Jews…and this fellow Cruz. It was Shabbos Yisro and my topic was the structure of the Aseres Hadibros. Ted Cruz engaged immediately. In describing one shitah as to why the Luchos and Dibros are structured the way they are, I introduced to the otherwise almost entirely Jewish group the fact that Christians count the “10 Commandments” differently than we do and, in fact, Catholics and Protestants differ amongst themselves. Cruz already knew. “My father ‘s a pastor and I’ve argued 10 Commandments cases,” he explained. “I love this.” He was totally knowledgeable, engaged and at home and his participation turned the session into an animated, vibrant, informed discussion that went on nearly two hours.

There were many places a candidate for Senate from Texas should have been that night if his first priority was political ambition. But Ted Cruz prefered to spend his time with us, with Jews enjoying Shabbos.

Since then, I’ve had a chance to be with Senator Cruz at a number of non-political events, for example a lunch visit of Jewish Yale students to his office organized by an alumni group to which Nick and I both belong. The Senator was actually scheduled for a midday “drop-by” this time, no more. But his connection to the politically diverse students was real. He wanted to talk about Israel, then under global onslaught for responding to the terror from Gaza, and about BDS and anti-Semitism and what it feels like to be Jewish today on a liberal college campus. He shared with us his concern over the normalization and intensification of international anti-Semitism and the impact of the widespread perception of America distancing itself from Israel under the Obama administration. Cruz pushed off other meetings and stayed for lunch and beyond. Republican, Democrat and Independent, the young impressionable Jewish students were deeply impacted by the senator from Texas’ knowledge, insight, empathy and passion.

The usual rap that the Left gives conservative candidates is that they are unintelligent. It doesn’t matter if they have academic and professional accomplishments that far outstrip their Democratic opponents. That spin simply wasn’t available with Ted Cruz, whom liberal Jewish icon Alan Dershowitz has publicly proclaimed to be “off-the-charts brilliant.” So instead they spun as a negative what should have been a positive – Cruz’ willingness to stand on principle and not surrender to DC politics as usual. The knock against Cruz now is that he is “unlikeable” because he isn’t popular with the establishment. Nonsense. In the larger social settings I’ve seen and in private one-on-ones, I’ve never found Cruz to be anything other than warm, open, intimate and inspiring. That many in Washington resent his principled service is a badge of honor. As Winston Churchill famously observed – and as Jews know very well – “You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”

Politics is a rough business and it takes guts to stand up for what is right. The Ted Cruz I’ve seen is driven by idealism and principle – above all, a fierce love for America as an exceptional country whose uniqueness derives from its moral leadership. It is equally clear that for Ted Cruz the wellbeing of Jews is a deeply personal commitment and that in the face of rising anti-Semitism, America’s moral leadership only exists inasmuch as it is committed to protecting Jews in Israel and around the world. Rest assured, in private as in public, Ted Cruz is a true Oheiv Yisroel and the kind of unyielding moral warrior we need in the White House.

Jeff Ballabon

US Senators: ‘EU Plans to Label Israeli Products Mere Figleaf for Boycott’

Tuesday, November 10th, 2015

Sometime in the near future the EU is expected to publish guidelines on consumer labeling of all Israeli products produced over the so-called “Green Line,” the armistice line created when the war against the nascent Jewish State ended.

The EU considers all Jewish cities and towns over the pre-1967 lines to be illegal. As such, anything produced, grown or packaged in either eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria or the Golan Heights will be labeled so that consumers can more easily boycott those products.

The guidelines will be published by the office of Federica Mogherini, the EU foreign policy chief. No vote is required for this measure to be taken.

There is pushback to that labeling plan coming not only from Israel, but also from many members of the U.S. Senate.

Three dozen U.S. Senators sent a letter to Mogherini, decrying the decision of the European Union to place labels on all those products imported into the EU which are produced beyond the “Green Line.”

The bipartisan letter, co-sponsored by Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), calls on the EU to refrain from this labeling effort which, they explained, is a mere cover for boycotting Israeli products.

“As allies, elected representatives of the American people, and strong supporters of Israel, we urge you not to implement this labeling policy, which appears intended to discourage Europeans from purchasing these products and promote a de-facto boycott of Israel, a key ally and the only true democracy in the Middle East,” the letter states.

“We believe strongly that these efforts are unwarranted, dangerous, and damaging to the prospects of a negotiated solution to [the Israeli-Palestinian] conflict.”

The full text of the letter and all the names of the 36 signers follows:

November 9, 2015

Ms. Federica Mogherini High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/ Vice-President of the European Commission (HRVP) Delegation of the European Union to the United States Suite 800 2175 K Street NW Washington, DC 20037

Dear High Representative Mogherini,

We write to express our concern over reports that the European Union (EU) intends to move forward with new guidelines to label certain products made by Israeli companies imported into the EU. In April, more than half of the foreign ministers of EU member states sent a letter encouraging you to proceed with this policy, and members of the EU Parliament subsequently voted to endorse this initiative in September. As allies, elected representatives of the American people, and strong supporters of Israel, we urge you not to implement this labeling policy, which appears intended to discourage Europeans from purchasing these products and promote a de-facto boycott of Israel, a key ally and the only true democracy in the Middle East. We believe strongly that these efforts are unwarranted, dangerous, and damaging to the prospects of a negotiated solution to this conflict.

We are also deeply concerned that enacting this policy would lead to the broader boycott of Israel. For decades, it has been the policy of the United States to oppose economic boycotts by other countries against Israel. In the 1970s, the United States Congress enacted legislation making it illegal for a U.S. company to comply with the Arab League boycott of Israel. This year, Congress has passed Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation requiring the United States to discourage Europe from enacting any politically motivated policies that would boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel when negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Differentiating between products made by Israeli companies creates a troubling precedent that could eventually lead to the type of activities that the TPA provisions aim to address.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

GOP: Polls and the Hinge Points of History

Thursday, October 17th, 2013

What does it mean that recent polls show 7 in 10 respondents think Republicans are putting their agenda ahead of what’s good for the country, as opposed to the 5 in 10 respondents who think President Obama is doing the same?

The answer probably lies in an analysis of the ancillary question posed in the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll: do respondents agree or not with the statement that the GOP or the president is “demonstrating strong leadership and standing up for what they [he] believe[s] in”?

For Republicans, only 27% of respondents agreed with that statement.  For Obama, 46% of them agreed.

On the face of it, that’s actually a contradictory assessment about the Republicans.  Only 27% of respondents think Republicans are standing up for what they believe in – and yet more than 70% of respondents (the actual figure was 74%) think Republicans are putting their agenda ahead of what’s good for the country?  How can that be?

Here’s how: a meaningful number of the respondents are conservative Republicans (call them the “Tea Party,” for short) who are disappointed with GOP leaders, because the conservative respondents don’t think GOP leaders are standing up for Republican beliefs.  Those respondents add to the number who are predisposed to blame or dislike Republicans for other reasons.  But the “Tea Party” demographic despises GOP leadership because it thinks the party is doing too little to combat current trends in government, rather than too much.

I don’t think it can be disputed that the opinion-poll numbers are bad for Republicans.  But I do think the narrative that reflexively calls this a linear reaction to The Stupidity of Cruz is all wet.  For one thing, that narrative itself falls apart on examination.  The specialized thought process and the poll-respondent demographic just don’t exist to make it descriptive.

Equally important, however, is the key difference between Democrats and Republicans in October 2013, which is that Republicans are profoundly divided.

As long as the Democrats keep their communications reasonably disciplined, they can be sure of getting a unified set of characterizations across to the public without interference.  But the Republicans, who already find every talking point distorted by the media, have the added burden of genuine disagreement among themselves.  There’s no question that Republicans look, at this juncture, like we can’t get our act together.  This is because we can’t get our act together.  We don’t agree on what it should be.

Poll respondents are quite reasonable in recognizing that there would be no government shutdown if everyone in the GOP agreed with the Democrats on what should be done.  That’s really kind of a forehead-slapping “duh!” revelation, and I suspect it’s what the poll numbers are telling us.  Of course it’s the GOP’s fault that there has been a shutdown.  Of course the shutdown has been forced by political differences.

Does it follow that 74% of poll respondents – or of Americans in general, who may or may not be well represented in this poll – think “the” problem is the Tea Party, and that the way to resolve it is for the GOP to crush the “Tea Party wing” and get on with the business of agreeing with the Democrats?

No, it doesn’t – any more than it follows that the GOP should do the converse: rout the GOP “moderates” in a turkey-shoot from the right.  There is no such quantity out there as a 74% majority making it clear that Republican blame for the shutdown should translate into gigging Ted Cruz like a swamp-bottom frog, or into running John McCain out of town on a rail.

What there is instead is a profound dispute within the GOP about who we are and what our way forward is.

There may no longer be a unifying “center” to hold the GOP together.  If the GOP doesn’t encompass the limited-government views of the Tea Party, there is an essential sense in which the party no longer represents an alternative to the Democratic Party.

But there is still a sizable number of Republicans who see a viable future for a Republican Party that makes its name on what George Will has been calling “splittable differences” with the Democrats in Congress.  I admire Will’s broadly positive and genial take on the current impasse between the parties, and between the factions in the GOP.  But ultimately, I’m not convinced that being the party of “splittable differences” would be a big motivator or vote-getter for Republicans.

J. E. Dyer

Why Ted Cruz Speaks for Me

Wednesday, September 25th, 2013

Ted Cruz and his allies get it.  They get that Americans can’t afford to have Obamacare implemented against our groaning, near-collapse finances.  They get that we are disgusted (and alarmed) at the idea of being the GOP’s economic attrition strategy for the 2014 election: the strategy that says, “Let things get as bad as they’re going to with Obamacare, and then people will finally blame the Democrats.”  The problem with that strategy is that someone has to pay the price for it – has to accept the financial losses, which for many people could be disastrous, even permanently life-changing – and that someone is us.

Cruz – and Mike Lee in the Senate, along with Matt Salmon (AZ) and others in the House – show that they get what the stakes are, by being willing to take a big risk on a deliberate strategy.  They’re making an attempt they could actually be defeated in:  to galvanize the rest of the GOP and get it to take a risk.

Contrast that with the bet-hedging and consultation-begging we see from the GOP leadership.  Here’s where my confession of populism comes in:  I don’t recall ever having such a sense of revulsion against the air of protecting privileged insularity that hangs over Beltway insiders, both politicians and pundits.  As we understand it, GOP leaders sent unsolicited “opposition research” to Fox News on Sunday, in order to undermine Cruz in his appearance with Chris Wallace.  Karl Rove excoriated Cruz on the Sunday show for failing to properly “consult” with his colleagues.  Tucker Carlson, Charles Krauthammer, and even Brit Hume took up the cry on Monday’s Special Report, accusing Cruz of grandstanding, and personalizing their criticisms of him to a startlingly petty degree.

Meanwhile, as the GOP impugns Ted Cruz’s motives with slam-book-quality allegations, it quietly accepts Obamacare exemptions and special subsidies for Congress.  The whole scenario seems like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington come to life.  All that’s missing is misleading photos of Cruz making bird calls.

But the truth is, this isn’t Mr. Smith Goes to Washington – because the plot of Mr. Smith turned on a relatively small matter, one that might have had symbolism for the operation of the whole government, but that in a literal sense affected only a small number of citizens.  The implementation of Obamacare is the biggest issue America has dealt with since how to get rid of the atrocious institution of slavery, and what “union” and “states’ rights” mean.  It profoundly affects everyone who will ever be an American from this day forward.  Issues don’t come any bigger.   Obamacare is about government’s relation to the citizen; about what government can dictate and control in our lives; and about what our economic liberties will mean, not in a decade, not a year from now, but tomorrow — and for the rest of our life as a nation.

From where I sit, it looks like Ted Cruz gets that.  He gets that we can’t just sit still, paralyzed by bad press and Democratic talking points, and let these questions be decided through the back door by the implementation of brain-deadening regulations.  He gets that that’s what’s happening.  He recognizes that a time comes when risk must be taken: when it just isn’t good enough for the well-worn remedies of consultation and deferral to produce the same unsatisfactory outcomes that they always do.  This time, the cost of taking that risk-averse route is too high.

Cruz did what he had to do on Fox on Sunday, remaining on message with admirable rhetorical discipline.  What he said was an accurate and succinct representation of the alternative he and his allies are offering:  fund the government without Obamacare in fiscal year 2014, as the alternative to funding it with Obamacare.  Delay implementation of the individual mandate, if that’s the best deal we can get, but go for the most we can get while still funding the government.  Don’t shut it down.  I found him to be effective in getting his point across.

But the old-school GOP leaders won’t get onboard with that message, apparently preferring to emphasize that they haven’t been consulted with.  They might as well just concede the terms of the fight to the Democrats and have done with it.

There are an awful lot of Americans out here who don’t know when the next shoe is going to drop, as the predator in the dark stalks their jobs, insurance, and finances.  Despising these people and their worries about Obamacare and the trend of big government – in the manner of Harry Reid – is as much bad karma as it is bad politics.  Yet senior Republicans seem to join Reid in being annoyed with the people for not wanting to play the role of the sacrifice in an electoral-politics ritual.

Instead of deferring an Obamacare fight to a future point we can’t guarantee we’ll even reach – i.e., after a Senate victory in 2014 – Cruz and his allies propose to fight today, on ground we can at least define clearly and prepare for in the present.  Are they right?  There are arguments pro and con.  But I don’t hear GOP leaders making any of those arguments in a forthright or convincing manner – or in any other way, for that matter.

One thing we can guarantee: we, Republican leaders and voters, won’t come to a unified position on that by refusing to address the question on the terms proposed by Cruz and his allies.  Cruz is trying to force the issue, which accords it the weight and immediacy that I give it.  He’s carrying my water.  If GOP leaders want to lead, they need to get out in front of this issue.  Go in strong with Cruz to make the strategy theirs – give the people something to applaud or reject – instead of merely sniping from the shadows.

J. E. Dyer

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/j-e-dyer/why-ted-cruz-speaks-for-me/2013/09/25/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: