It was hilarious how Sadler tore Cruz apart. Not that it really matters in Texas. Cruz wlll win easily.

(10-03-2012 12:15 AM)RobertN Wrote:   It was hilarious how Sadler tore Cruz apart. Not that it really matters in Texas. Cruz wlll win easily.

I watched part of that debate down here in Texas. Cruz will win the election and then make a complete a_s off himself.

Everything is a stock talking point. And he comes off as a huge jerk. Whats the over/under before he pulls a Akin? 3 months in office is the line. I'll take the under.

No one down here is paying any attention to the race. So he's getting no scrutiny. Once he gets to Washington...katy bar the door.

But in one respect, he's better than Kay Bailey Hutchison. KBH could actually come off as someone people could relate to (not that she was appreciably different from Cruz on any issues). Ted Cruz? He's going to come across like Tancredo or Bachmann.

(10-03-2012 12:27 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But in one respect, he's better than Kay Bailey Hutchison. KBH could actually come off as someone people could relate to (not that she was appreciably different from Cruz on any issues). Ted Cruz? He's going to come across like Tancredo or Bachmann.

how exactly is that better?

(10-03-2012 12:32 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 12:27 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But in one respect, he's better than Kay Bailey Hutchison. KBH could actually come off as someone people could relate to (not that she was appreciably different from Cruz on any issues). Ted Cruz? He's going to come across like Tancredo or Bachmann.

how exactly is that better?

Because given that both KBH and Cruz will vote exactly the same on the issues, I'd rather have the tea party side represented by someone who will turn off everyone that isn't a hard core tea partier. In other words, Cruz will win the election without scrutiny. Then he will vote exactly like KBH did, but he will likely create a bunch of baggage. Perhaps that wont be enough to pull the needle here in Texas, but he will likely be a prominent embarrasment to the GOP on a national basis.

Tom Tancredo was much worse for the GOP cause than some bland tea partish conservative who votes the same way. Tancredo, Bachmann, and Cruz tend to be polarizing people who can turn off voters against the GOP even in other areas. They tend to be incredibly ineffective at advancing legislation. They advance NOISE.

We shall see. For me as a left of center voter, I don't see any difference between Dewhurst, Cruz or KBH on voting records. I just think that having the other side represented by polarizing figure and a massive jerk is better than having it represented by a capable politician able to effectively advance legislation.

In short, I think Cruz is a simple buffoon. I think he'll be unable to work with anyone but the tea party caucus in the Senate. I think he'll be a walking retraction or gaffe factory (like Sideshow Mel Martinez of Florida). I think he'll be much less effective at advancing legislation than Dewhurst or KBH.

I don't see Susan Collins or Sen Brown (if he doesn't lose to Warren) or even McCain being able to work with him.

I'll be voting for Sadler. But lets be clear, in Texas the choice wasn't between a Democrat and a Republican. It was between an effective, formidable politician who has decades of successful experience implementing very conservative legislation.... and a gaffe prone ideologue who probably can't legislate his way out of a paper bag. They'll both vote the same way on every issue. But Dewhurst and KBH could actually carry legislation. Cruz is just going to throw stones.

In other words, you think he is "better" because he will be ineffective... Which makes your conslusions about who won the debate highly suspect. You won't like most of what they say and think the other guy won because you don't support their positions, which isn 't really what a debate is about. He never had a chance of winning your vote, and you're surprised when what he says doesn't appeal to you?

(10-03-2012 12:54 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  In other words, you think he is "better" because he will be ineffective... Which makes your conslusions about who won the debate highly suspect. You won't like most of what they say and think the other guy won because you don't support their positions, which isn 't really what a debate is about. He never had a chance of winning your vote, and you're surprised when what he says doesn't appeal to you?

Did you watch the debate? I did. There's a difference between I agree with candidate X and so I think he killed in the debate and understanding that a candidate, regardless of politics looks like an idiot. I'll give you an example. When I saw Howard Dean's "I have a scream" speech in Iowa, I knew that he had made a serious gaffe. Even though I like Howard Dean and agree with him on the issues. Yea, it was that obvious.

Cruz is an idiot. KBH (the retiring Republican Senator) wasn't the most effective legislator, but she was capable. Dewhurst (the Republican Lt Governor, who Cruz defeated in the primary) was actually really effective. Given that Texas is going to elect a conservative Republican....I'd rather have someone who is a polarizing idiot on the other side of the aisle, than an effective politician advocating against my side.

Cruz hasn't had any scrutiny from anything other than the right wing. Sadler has no money to compete here. The media has largely ignored the race down here. He's a walking gaffe. And he doesn't work well with others. And he's got some NASTY lobbying connections in his closet. He's largely escaped scrutiny. He'll get plenty of it in Washington. I don't think he has the demeanor to handle it deftly. Either way, its not like any legislative votes are going to change as a result of this election.