I posted on yesterday’s thread that I was in love with Gene Tierney.
I mentioned this before, I believe, but I was at the American Theater in Charleston watching her and Randolph Scott in “Belle Starr” on Dec. 7, 1941.
One of those “You’ll always remember where you were when ……..” moments.
Regarding Cruz’s speech, I heard a caller on a talk radio program with an interesting thought. He said that if Cruz had said this, he would have seemed marvelous and genuine and positioned himself wonderfully for a future run at the Oval Office: “Mr. Trump called me a liar and has not apologized, but I forgive him. Mr. Trump disparaged my wife and has not apologized, but I forgive him. I promised to endorse the Republican candidate and, since I am a man of my word, I now endorse Mr. Trump.”
I was a Republican from 1968 (when I was 10) until today. The eighties were the best, but there were other good times. In the last two nights, Republicans booed free trade, booed a speaker defending the Constitution, cheered perversion and nominated a liberal megalomaniac. Now I’m just a Texan looking to secede or emigrate.
I’m no longer a member of either party (again). And you know what? I kind of like it.
If Trump wins, the party will probably be, to some extent, following a new road that we’ve seen him set. Social issues are dead and buried, for now. It seems that the general electorate has no stomach to go there again, at least for now. The Supreme Court has spoken, everyone’s war-weary, the fight on many of those fronts has, for the moment, been lost.
If Trump loses in November, I’m not sure what happens to the Republican party. It will essentially be up for grabs among all it’s disparate parts. But even then I think the age of fighting the social issues is behind us. We’re a distinct minority when it comes to many of those issues now.
Doesn’t mean we don’t continue to press on and stand for the truth, but thinking we will hold much sway with the nation as a whole when it comes to elections probably should be accepted as rather unlikely.
On Cruz: I have no problem with what Cruz said and it was a good speech in many ways. As Karen said on the daily thread, my complaint was his using the convention stage on which to make it. I realize this year is different, but conventions are meant to show a unified front, as much as possible, as a party prepares to go into a general election.
For four days. That’s all.
Before and after that, say whatever you will.
Staying away if you simply can’t do that was taking the high road, in my view.
Cruz showed a lack of grace and a desire to stir the pot for his own political advantage when it was simply not needed and inappropriate.
As Mona Charen also pointed out in a column yesterday, Cruz can take a big part of the blame for blowing everything up in this election with his constant lambasting of the party ever since he got into office. It’s what’s made him so, a-hem, “popular” with all of his colleagues. So enter Donald Trump who was able to take full advantage of that. (And, yes, Cruz embarrassingly lavished praise on Trump — until, as Charen says, Trump “turned his muzzle” in Ted’s direction. Live by the sword, die by the sword.)
… The shrewdest old political pro, the brightest young delegate, the owlish political journalist—they didn’t know exactly what they were witnessing. Was it the formal start of an epic political disaster? The birth of a new GOP more identified with the struggles of its base? Is 2016 a particular and contained event, or does it mark the beginning of some long-term realignment? As for Mr. Trump, is he a lightning storm that lit things up, caused some damage, will play itself out and pass? Or is he an earthquake that changed the actual shape of things, the literal lay of the land?
Nobody involved here, nobody watching, knew. I’ve never quite seen such intellectual modesty among people who are usually quick in their eagerness to explain it all to you.
…. Ted Cruz did himself damage. By the end of his tireless campaign for the nomination he was semi-endearing. Wednesday night he resurrected Snaky Ted. He spoke highly of freedom and went after President Obama. Sometimes he half-laughed after speaking a line, as if to say You know this is showbiz, right? It showed an unbecoming detachment. He told the audience not to stay home in November but vote for the right person, then forgot to say who that person might be.
If you can’t endorse, good for you and stay home. That isn’t politics, it’s basic human comportment. If someone you’re certain is awful invites you to a party, you politely decline. You don’t go, walk into the room, and punch your host in the head. Mr. Cruz miscalculated, thinking if he snubbed Trump half the delegates would cheer. Instead almost all booed. He thought the media would laud his courage and integrity. They saw him as wounded and treated him as prey. …
… What a jerk.
… (Trump’s speech) was not an eloquent speech, not lofty, very plain and blunt. It covered a lot of territory and went too long. It had no leavening humor. It is strange to see a New Yorker so uninterested in wit. It was at points too hyped and declarative, and it was sometimes grandiose.
But it was powerful. After reading a copy of the speech leaked in advance by a mischief maker, an anti-Trump conservative intellectual emailed me. “He’s going to win,” he said. The moment at least was not unknowable to him.
_____________________________
Trump is attracting blue-collar Democrats (like my neighbors, for example) — something both Nixon & Reagan were able to do. It could matter in swing states like Ohio.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I do not believe that Trump found out about Cruz’s non-endorsement only two hours before the speech. He may have received the full text only then, but he knew before then he wasn’t getting an endorsement.
Cruz told Trump directly this week that he would not give an endorsement, said Cruz strategist Jason Johnson.
“It is a fact that Cruz spoke, by phone, to Trump two days ago and told him his speech would not include an ‘endorsement,’ rather would lay out principles we can all unite around. This was not a surprise,” Johnson said. He added that it was Trump who called up Cruz.
Someone – I don’t remember who – mentioned on yesterday’s thread that this was not Trump’s convention, it was the Republican convention. Absolutely right. There’s no rule, and historically no reason to assume, that it has to be a coronation for the winner with not a bad word said about him the whole week. Cruz had won hundreds of delegates, had a right to speak his mind, and spoke for a lot of people who voted for him.
You want to talk about bad behavior, to me the way Trump conducted himself throughout the campaign far outweighs Cruz breaking his pledge. I might not keep a promise I made to someone who abused me the way Trump abused Cruz.
Okay, I’ll sit down and be quiet now.
If you didn’t read the article Roscuro linked on yesterday’s thread, you should do so. The writer left open the question of what motivated Cruz, but gave a very nice historical perspective on the role of “the will of the people” in American government.
With no offense to Donna, I think “the media” is over-evaluating, over-stressing, and over-reporting the RNC. It’s just another dog-and-pony show that doesn’t mean squat.
When the GOP has a guy like Trump as the nominee, I really don’t get how something like Cruz’s speech/lack of endorsement can be anywhere near the party’s biggest problem.
Conventions used to be a free for all. But since the parties have effectively shifted to letting the voters — via primaries and caucuses — decide the nominee in advance (with delegates actually only confirming those choices), the role of the conventions has changed.
In that vein, Cruz was out of line. But ironically it mostly wound up only burying his own future ambitions, so there you go.
Maybe that’s what Trump had counted on. 🙂 He’s not dumb.
Linda, this happens every four years. There are always more media than delegates at these major party conventions so you’ll always wind up with over-think. 🙂
Political reporters become quite obsessed. It’s just who they are and what they do.
Noonan’s statement leading up to her “what a jerk” conclusion from the WSJ link:
____________________________
… When his campaign ended in June, I attended a small dinner in his honor. Mr. Cruz was charming, modest and funny. When we said goodnight I told him I felt, in retrospect, that I hadn’t always been just to him and was glad I’d have a chance to be more generous in the future. Apparently I will need still more time. What a jerk. …
____________________________
I don’t think he was a jerk. But then, I did not listen to his speech. Sounds like he said lots of nice things and encouraged the people to vote for whom they thought best. Nothing wrong with that. He did not endorse because as things came out in the primary, he learned he could not vote for the guy. Should never have said he would but he was probably thinking about what normal people are like. He did not say people should not vote for him and his speech was preapproved. He probably knew how this would look to many people but chose to be honest and protect his family. Trump is continuing to bash Cruz but at least now he is not bashing the family. Cruz protects wife and dad. I like that
Maybe this hasn’t trashed Cruz’s career. If Trump is elected, & tanks, then Cruz will be remembered as someone who tried to warn them (or something like that).
Here are some assumptions being made that I don’t necessary think should be:
–Speakers at a convention are obligated to endorse the nominee
–A Cruz endorsement of Trump would be good for the health of the party
–Cruz was still bound to an oath he had taken to endorse Trump
–An electorate united around Donald Trump will be good for conservatism in the long run
–Cruz was angling for his own political ambitions
–Cruz’s political future is dead
Not that I think there’s much hope for the GOP anyway, but a Cruz endorsement of Trump, while it may have gotten Trump a few more votes, wouldn’t be of any value to the party or conservatism in general.
Except Cruz wasn’t all that popular to begin with, if you all remember, though he wound up being the “last man standing” under Trump. But not for long.
There has been some disagreement, among various Facebook friends & here, on the question of whether or not Cruz went back on his word, showing some lack of integrity, by disregarding that pledge. One opinion is that since Trump said he wouldn’t honor it, then Cruz was released from it. Another opinion is that one is not released from a pledge just because the other person decides to break it.
It might be a good idea for Cruz to apologize for breaking the pledge. It seems that even people who felt he shouldn’t have broken it also are sympathetic to why he did it.
At the least, this should teach politicians a lesson to not make pledges or vows hastily.
And as one of the pundits recently said, win or lose, the Republican Party will never be the same. Hard to say what will emerge in its place, but I’m guessing a more centrist party with social conservatives becoming a distinct minority voice in the county for the foreseeable future.
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall …
Post-Christian, I agree. Not much influence Christians have anymore in either party — or in the culture in general in the U.S.
Seems like it all happened quickly, but not really. Although I’d say that the Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage seemed to put the cap on it all in a very startling way. Christians who supported traditional marriage went from being (at least) part of the conversation to being shunned and shamed and pretty roundly (and effectively) silenced.
So what is left of the three equal legs of Reagan’s conservative coalition?
1. Social conservatism? Perverted men are following girls into bathrooms, speaking at the Republican convention and being praised by the Republican nominee? Nothing is left.
2. Strong National Defense combined with cautious use of power? Little Bush’s Iraq misadventure and Hillary/Obama’s Libyan and Syrian debacles look similar. We are filling our military with women and perverts and Trump blathers whatever thought comes into his head, regardless of the international consequences.
3. Economic Conservatism and freedom? Trump is a protectionist like Sanders. Trump is for socialized medicine like Sanders. Trump is against entitlement reform like Clinton and Sanders. Sparked by his lunacy and vindictiveness, expect Trump to use all the power of the federal government to attack companies and industries with whom he is angry.
It is all gone. We are post-Christian and we are post-conservative, and to top it at all off, if you can judge by Trump’s popularity, a huge number of us have become imbeciles.
If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
Wandering Views 
It was a good speech.
LikeLike
Gene Tierney was beautiful and charming.
LikeLike
I posted on yesterday’s thread that I was in love with Gene Tierney.
I mentioned this before, I believe, but I was at the American Theater in Charleston watching her and Randolph Scott in “Belle Starr” on Dec. 7, 1941.
One of those “You’ll always remember where you were when ……..” moments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regarding Cruz’s speech, I heard a caller on a talk radio program with an interesting thought. He said that if Cruz had said this, he would have seemed marvelous and genuine and positioned himself wonderfully for a future run at the Oval Office: “Mr. Trump called me a liar and has not apologized, but I forgive him. Mr. Trump disparaged my wife and has not apologized, but I forgive him. I promised to endorse the Republican candidate and, since I am a man of my word, I now endorse Mr. Trump.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
Chas, It has been proven that Gene Tierney was even prettier when she spoke with a Southern accent as in “Belle Starr”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was a Republican from 1968 (when I was 10) until today. The eighties were the best, but there were other good times. In the last two nights, Republicans booed free trade, booed a speaker defending the Constitution, cheered perversion and nominated a liberal megalomaniac. Now I’m just a Texan looking to secede or emigrate.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m no longer a member of either party (again). And you know what? I kind of like it.
If Trump wins, the party will probably be, to some extent, following a new road that we’ve seen him set. Social issues are dead and buried, for now. It seems that the general electorate has no stomach to go there again, at least for now. The Supreme Court has spoken, everyone’s war-weary, the fight on many of those fronts has, for the moment, been lost.
If Trump loses in November, I’m not sure what happens to the Republican party. It will essentially be up for grabs among all it’s disparate parts. But even then I think the age of fighting the social issues is behind us. We’re a distinct minority when it comes to many of those issues now.
Doesn’t mean we don’t continue to press on and stand for the truth, but thinking we will hold much sway with the nation as a whole when it comes to elections probably should be accepted as rather unlikely.
On Cruz: I have no problem with what Cruz said and it was a good speech in many ways. As Karen said on the daily thread, my complaint was his using the convention stage on which to make it. I realize this year is different, but conventions are meant to show a unified front, as much as possible, as a party prepares to go into a general election.
For four days. That’s all.
Before and after that, say whatever you will.
Staying away if you simply can’t do that was taking the high road, in my view.
Cruz showed a lack of grace and a desire to stir the pot for his own political advantage when it was simply not needed and inappropriate.
As Mona Charen also pointed out in a column yesterday, Cruz can take a big part of the blame for blowing everything up in this election with his constant lambasting of the party ever since he got into office. It’s what’s made him so, a-hem, “popular” with all of his colleagues. So enter Donald Trump who was able to take full advantage of that. (And, yes, Cruz embarrassingly lavished praise on Trump — until, as Charen says, Trump “turned his muzzle” in Ted’s direction. Live by the sword, die by the sword.)
LikeLike
Peggy Noonan on the “unknowable moment” we find ourselves in in the wake of the GOP convention:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-the-unknowable-moment-1469162752
___________________________
… The shrewdest old political pro, the brightest young delegate, the owlish political journalist—they didn’t know exactly what they were witnessing. Was it the formal start of an epic political disaster? The birth of a new GOP more identified with the struggles of its base? Is 2016 a particular and contained event, or does it mark the beginning of some long-term realignment? As for Mr. Trump, is he a lightning storm that lit things up, caused some damage, will play itself out and pass? Or is he an earthquake that changed the actual shape of things, the literal lay of the land?
Nobody involved here, nobody watching, knew. I’ve never quite seen such intellectual modesty among people who are usually quick in their eagerness to explain it all to you.
…. Ted Cruz did himself damage. By the end of his tireless campaign for the nomination he was semi-endearing. Wednesday night he resurrected Snaky Ted. He spoke highly of freedom and went after President Obama. Sometimes he half-laughed after speaking a line, as if to say You know this is showbiz, right? It showed an unbecoming detachment. He told the audience not to stay home in November but vote for the right person, then forgot to say who that person might be.
If you can’t endorse, good for you and stay home. That isn’t politics, it’s basic human comportment. If someone you’re certain is awful invites you to a party, you politely decline. You don’t go, walk into the room, and punch your host in the head. Mr. Cruz miscalculated, thinking if he snubbed Trump half the delegates would cheer. Instead almost all booed. He thought the media would laud his courage and integrity. They saw him as wounded and treated him as prey. …
… What a jerk.
… (Trump’s speech) was not an eloquent speech, not lofty, very plain and blunt. It covered a lot of territory and went too long. It had no leavening humor. It is strange to see a New Yorker so uninterested in wit. It was at points too hyped and declarative, and it was sometimes grandiose.
But it was powerful. After reading a copy of the speech leaked in advance by a mischief maker, an anti-Trump conservative intellectual emailed me. “He’s going to win,” he said. The moment at least was not unknowable to him.
_____________________________
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump is attracting blue-collar Democrats (like my neighbors, for example) — something both Nixon & Reagan were able to do. It could matter in swing states like Ohio.
LikeLiked by 1 person
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I do not believe that Trump found out about Cruz’s non-endorsement only two hours before the speech. He may have received the full text only then, but he knew before then he wasn’t getting an endorsement.
Cruz told Trump directly this week that he would not give an endorsement, said Cruz strategist Jason Johnson.
“It is a fact that Cruz spoke, by phone, to Trump two days ago and told him his speech would not include an ‘endorsement,’ rather would lay out principles we can all unite around. This was not a surprise,” Johnson said. He added that it was Trump who called up Cruz.
(From http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/ted-cruz-donald-trump-convention-snub-225933#ixzz4F9oGUh4C)
Someone – I don’t remember who – mentioned on yesterday’s thread that this was not Trump’s convention, it was the Republican convention. Absolutely right. There’s no rule, and historically no reason to assume, that it has to be a coronation for the winner with not a bad word said about him the whole week. Cruz had won hundreds of delegates, had a right to speak his mind, and spoke for a lot of people who voted for him.
You want to talk about bad behavior, to me the way Trump conducted himself throughout the campaign far outweighs Cruz breaking his pledge. I might not keep a promise I made to someone who abused me the way Trump abused Cruz.
Okay, I’ll sit down and be quiet now.
If you didn’t read the article Roscuro linked on yesterday’s thread, you should do so. The writer left open the question of what motivated Cruz, but gave a very nice historical perspective on the role of “the will of the people” in American government.
LikeLiked by 2 people
With no offense to Donna, I think “the media” is over-evaluating, over-stressing, and over-reporting the RNC. It’s just another dog-and-pony show that doesn’t mean squat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump is back talking about the Cruz/Lee Harvey Oswald “connection” today. The man is literally insane.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Amen.
LikeLike
Trump is a gambler down in his soul. He was hedging his bet. He thought he knew what Ted Cruz would do and he took a risk. The risk payed off.
LikeLike
The amen was to Linda’s post but it may well go with Ricky’s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When the GOP has a guy like Trump as the nominee, I really don’t get how something like Cruz’s speech/lack of endorsement can be anywhere near the party’s biggest problem.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Conventions used to be a free for all. But since the parties have effectively shifted to letting the voters — via primaries and caucuses — decide the nominee in advance (with delegates actually only confirming those choices), the role of the conventions has changed.
In that vein, Cruz was out of line. But ironically it mostly wound up only burying his own future ambitions, so there you go.
Maybe that’s what Trump had counted on. 🙂 He’s not dumb.
LikeLike
Linda, this happens every four years. There are always more media than delegates at these major party conventions so you’ll always wind up with over-think. 🙂
Political reporters become quite obsessed. It’s just who they are and what they do.
LikeLike
Noonan’s statement leading up to her “what a jerk” conclusion from the WSJ link:
____________________________
… When his campaign ended in June, I attended a small dinner in his honor. Mr. Cruz was charming, modest and funny. When we said goodnight I told him I felt, in retrospect, that I hadn’t always been just to him and was glad I’d have a chance to be more generous in the future. Apparently I will need still more time. What a jerk. …
____________________________
LikeLike
I don’t think he was a jerk. But then, I did not listen to his speech. Sounds like he said lots of nice things and encouraged the people to vote for whom they thought best. Nothing wrong with that. He did not endorse because as things came out in the primary, he learned he could not vote for the guy. Should never have said he would but he was probably thinking about what normal people are like. He did not say people should not vote for him and his speech was preapproved. He probably knew how this would look to many people but chose to be honest and protect his family. Trump is continuing to bash Cruz but at least now he is not bashing the family. Cruz protects wife and dad. I like that
LikeLiked by 2 people
Maybe this hasn’t trashed Cruz’s career. If Trump is elected, & tanks, then Cruz will be remembered as someone who tried to warn them (or something like that).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Here are some assumptions being made that I don’t necessary think should be:
–Speakers at a convention are obligated to endorse the nominee
–A Cruz endorsement of Trump would be good for the health of the party
–Cruz was still bound to an oath he had taken to endorse Trump
–An electorate united around Donald Trump will be good for conservatism in the long run
–Cruz was angling for his own political ambitions
–Cruz’s political future is dead
Not that I think there’s much hope for the GOP anyway, but a Cruz endorsement of Trump, while it may have gotten Trump a few more votes, wouldn’t be of any value to the party or conservatism in general.
Cruz wasn’t out of line.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Right, Karen. Even though Cruz’s wife has worked for Goldman-Sachs (GASP!), it’s still possible Cruz was speaking on principle and conviction.
LikeLike
Except Cruz wasn’t all that popular to begin with, if you all remember, though he wound up being the “last man standing” under Trump. But not for long.
LikeLike
Cruz may not have been all that popular to begin with; now the party has nominated Trump. OK, I guess that’s all good stuff?
LikeLike
There has been some disagreement, among various Facebook friends & here, on the question of whether or not Cruz went back on his word, showing some lack of integrity, by disregarding that pledge. One opinion is that since Trump said he wouldn’t honor it, then Cruz was released from it. Another opinion is that one is not released from a pledge just because the other person decides to break it.
It might be a good idea for Cruz to apologize for breaking the pledge. It seems that even people who felt he shouldn’t have broken it also are sympathetic to why he did it.
At the least, this should teach politicians a lesson to not make pledges or vows hastily.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Already said, I probably won’t be casting a vote for president this year.
Just saying this is the political landscape in which we find ourselves.
LikeLike
And as one of the pundits recently said, win or lose, the Republican Party will never be the same. Hard to say what will emerge in its place, but I’m guessing a more centrist party with social conservatives becoming a distinct minority voice in the county for the foreseeable future.
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Douthat agrees that Trump is a clear sign that we are in the post-Christian era.
Trump is also a sign that we are in the post-sanity era.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Poor, dumb old Rush Limbaugh goes fully over to the dark side.
http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/07/22/rush-limbaugh-shreds-last-bits-dignity-idolize-trump-trash-ted-cruz/
LikeLike
Post-Christian, I agree. Not much influence Christians have anymore in either party — or in the culture in general in the U.S.
Seems like it all happened quickly, but not really. Although I’d say that the Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage seemed to put the cap on it all in a very startling way. Christians who supported traditional marriage went from being (at least) part of the conversation to being shunned and shamed and pretty roundly (and effectively) silenced.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So what is left of the three equal legs of Reagan’s conservative coalition?
1. Social conservatism? Perverted men are following girls into bathrooms, speaking at the Republican convention and being praised by the Republican nominee? Nothing is left.
2. Strong National Defense combined with cautious use of power? Little Bush’s Iraq misadventure and Hillary/Obama’s Libyan and Syrian debacles look similar. We are filling our military with women and perverts and Trump blathers whatever thought comes into his head, regardless of the international consequences.
3. Economic Conservatism and freedom? Trump is a protectionist like Sanders. Trump is for socialized medicine like Sanders. Trump is against entitlement reform like Clinton and Sanders. Sparked by his lunacy and vindictiveness, expect Trump to use all the power of the federal government to attack companies and industries with whom he is angry.
It is all gone. We are post-Christian and we are post-conservative, and to top it at all off, if you can judge by Trump’s popularity, a huge number of us have become imbeciles.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
LikeLiked by 3 people