Comments about ‘Sen. Ted Cruz opens 2014 CPAC with 'principles' speech’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, March 6 2014 10:43 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mark B
Eureka, CA

The only principle (if you can call it that) I see in Ted Cruz is the principle of getting elected to higher office by any means necessary.

RedShirtMIT
Cambridge, MA

To "LOU Montana" but why do you blame conservatives for the feeding frenzy that Liberals go into whenever somebody says that principles are needed or that Republicans should explain why they are different from Democrats?

You also don't sound like you have been paying attention to Politics over the past 5 years. Conservatives have proposed and passed a lot of legislation to get things back on track, but have been shot down by the Senate every time.

To "slcdenizen" Ted Cruz didn't take the country to the brink of default. He is just one person, and 1 person cannot do anything by themselves in the Senate. If you want to blame anybody, blame Harry Reid for not getting a budget passed over the past 5 years.

To "vern001" Actually, you are wrong. Just look at the number of Tea-Party canidates that have spent less than half as much as their rivals, and win because they explain themselves and are people who live by their principles.

Gildas
LOGAN, UT

I liked some of the principles mentioned: the Bill of Rights, abolish IRS, Audit the Fed, honest government etc.

I was rather suspicious of the speech generally though:

1. Ted emphasized "the young" but went too far in calling their parents and grandparents "dead beats". The young had "a right to a good education", which their parents pay for, apparently, but it sounded as though he might not approve of Social Security payments, which parents also paid for.

2. He started by throwing out some buzz words. He was concerned for "single mothers" (unmarried mothers?), and "Hispanics" (never once addressing the serious problem of illegal immigration) etc.

3. I do not know what he means by a "flat tax" unless he will specify that the basic exemptions would be protected, spouse and minor children.

4. I do not support "term limits". We have so few good congressment; I don't want to lose the few admirable ones.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Gildas,

We will always need a tax collection agency (call it what you will) even with a flat tax. Smaller? Sure. But you will need one for enforcement.

Auditing the Fed is fine as long as it is apolitical. Too many politicians trying to direct the Fed would make it a total disaster (yes, worse than whatever you might think it is today).

As to term limits. Yes please. Would I (and everyone else) lose folks I love? Sure. But a bit more of the citizen servant and far less of the political dynasty seems a welcome idea.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

Ted Cruz brings down the house leaving the Tea Party faction howling with delight at his every utterance. He should enjoy it while it lasts because for him that’s as good as it’s likely to ever get. He haughtily sneers at Dole, McCain and Romney but the White House can’t be won without broader support than Cruz with his abrasive manner is capable of winning.

slcdenizen
t-ville, UT

@RedShirtMIT

Despite protestations to the contrary, the conservative movement has devolved into a cult of personality. Information is only valuable with regard to the speaker. In the case of the government shutdown, Mr. Cruz indeed led the way along with his misfit sidekick Mr. Lee to rile up the base of the Republican party trying to "defund" a legitimately passed ACA. This was a fruitless attempt at opposing legislation in the name of "conservatism". There was nothing prudent about the tactic and it caused billions in missed economic activity. One man? Sure, so was Mao. And Stalin. But when their followers don't value information for its' own sake, they become figureheads of a movement. In this case a sad, cringe-inducing movement of spoiled boomers afraid of progress.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"Tax cuts in general are followed by a growth in the economy. Tax burdens are followed by a shrinking of the economy"

Only if you cherry pick the data.

I can certainly understand how cutting the highest tax rate from 90% to 70% could have the affect of growing the economy. Same with 70% to 50%.

It would be much harder to make that case using 39% and 36%.

But, answer this. If the 50% tax rate under Reagan was such an stimulus for the economy, why is 39% such an economy killer?

This is where the logic fails.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

I watched Cruz's rise here in Texas. He taps into the fears and resentments of those at risk of being left behind by a changing America. This is his fuel. But he really has just one over-riding principle: the aggrandizement of Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz. Personally I've never been able to shake the feeling that he is the second coming of Joe McCarthy.

A few things I do agree with him on: A lifetime ban on lobbying and term limits. What about one 6-year term for both Senators and Representatives. This would allow enough time to actually accomplish something and they won't be spending any time raising money for the next campaign.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Esquire - Your history of the Clinton administration is not quite accurate.

You said that Clinton's "tax cut - [resulted in ] a vibrant economy and balanced budgets in the Clinton years.

Clinton is known for the huge tax INCREASE he pushed through Congress in 1993. Although, he did reduce taxes for the middle class later on.

The credit for that vibrant economy goes to the active promotion of the Internet as a business tool by VP Al Gore, which resulted in an explosion of Internet businesses and the dot com boom.

Clinton's tax hike skimmed many billions off the profits of those high earners, and consequently our nation enjoyed balanced budgets for several consecutive years.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments