“It’s not the job of the U.S. military to do nation building or produce democratic utopias.”
For The Daily Beast, Eli Lake writes:One way to understand Ted Cruz’s foreign policy, particularly if you are a Democrat, is through the prism of the social media phenomenon known as trolling. The best trolls are provocateurs. Their language is meant to expose a fallacy or weakness in the opponent’s position as opposed to offering a constructive alternative.
“The American president has a peculiar leadership responsibility to speak out for freedom.”
In a wide-ranging interview with the junior senator from Texas, there was a lot of trolling. Of Obama’s recent attempt to stop the fighting in Gaza, Cruz said, “We should be helping Israel, not Hamas, which is what John Kerry’s proposal would have done.” But Cruz found a silver lining. “It’s remarkable that the failures of the Obama, Clinton, Kerry foreign policy are not only uniting the left and right in Israel but might even be creating some common ground between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.”
Cruz’s foreign policy approach hews much closer to that of one of Reagan’s top advisers, Jeane Kirkpatrick. She wrote a landmark essay for Commentary in 1979 called “Dictatorships And Double Standards” where she chastised President Jimmy Carter for pursuing human rights at the expense of U.S. national interests.
When speaking about the conditions that led up to the Egyptian military coup last year, Cruz observed: “One of the saddest things to see were posters among the people that said: ‘Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood,’ ‘America supports terrorists.’”
Cruz described Secretary of State John Kerry’s surprise deal with Vladimir Putin to disarm Syria’s chemical weapons in these words: “The incompetence of the Obama foreign policy was so manifest that it presented an opportunity for Putin to cast himself as a hero and save the day.” The Federal Aviation Administration’s decision last week to suspend all air travel to Israel after a Hamas rocket fell near Ben Gurion Airport amounted to an “economic boycott of Israel.”
But to think of Cruz as just a troll is to miss an important development in the Grand Old Party’s post-Bush foreign policy. Read the rest of this entry »
“We need a special prosecutor with meaningful independence to make sure that justice is served and that ourconstitutional rights to free speech, to assembly, and to privacy are protected.”
Cruz said on the Senate Floor on Thursday…He referred to the Watergate Scandal, and said that when President Richard Nixon attempted to use the IRS to target political enemies, “it was wrong, it was an abuse of power, and he was rightfully condemned by both sides of the aisle… Both cases involved an abuse of power, but the difference is that with Nixon,
“Republicans had the courage to stand up to their own party. It saddens me that there is not a single Democratic member of this body who has had the courage to stand up to their own party and say that this abuse of power . . . is wrong.”
“Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the President’s persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat,” Cruz stated in the report’s introductory remarks. Read the rest of this entry »
See my radioactive pointing finger? This is how I win arguments.
Ted Cruz stands up for citizens’ right to spend money on politics.
For National Review Online, Dustin Siggins writes: What is the right amount of speech to give to citizens in politics? Both major parties are debating this question as the 2014 midterm elections approach.
“…I would ask you, why does a corporation like The New York Times or CBS, or any other media corporation, in Congress’ view, enjoy greater First Amendment rights than individual citizens.”
According to former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who told a Senate panel Wednesday that campaign money is not the same as speech, the answer seems to be “a limited amount.” Stevens, who has been critical of his former colleagues on the Court for overturning a number of campaign finance reform measures, was joined by Democrats who went after the Koch brothers for their involvement in the political system.
Enter Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas), who in about five-and-a-half minutes shattered the entire argument for what Washington considers “campaign finance reform.” His comments turned campaign-finance pieties on their head and made clear why free speech needs to be paramount in the United States.
Cruz pointed out how campaign finance reform protects incumbents. Instead of allowing as much speech as possible for the American people, elected officials have engaged in self-preservation at the cost of the First Amendment. To quote the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro from a 2012 appearance in front of a Senate subcommittee, “Let the voters weigh what a donation from this or that plutocrat means to them, rather than — and I say this with all due respect — allowing incumbent politicians to write the rules to benefit themselves.”
“…there are 300 million Americans who have the right to criticize you all day long and twice on Sundays.”
Similarly, Cruz noted that incumbents have “lobbyists and entrenched interests” doing fundraising for them. This is in stark contrast to challengers, who Cruz says “[have] to raise the money.” Read the rest of this entry »
Aboutalebi was a member of the student group that led the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
According to the Washington Post, this news story isn’t about Hamid Aboutalebi, it’s about Senator Ted Cruz. Aboutalebi’s name doesn’t appear in the body copy until the end of the second paragraph. Cruz’s name is in the first paragraph. Ted Cruz’s name appear as the first words in (the Washington Post‘s version of) the headline. Aboutalebi isn’t mentioned in the headline.
That said, I’m impressed that it takes a whole 23 words before this Washington Post news story turns into a stealth Op-Ed. Note in the story’s opening paragraph this morsel of sarcastic editorializing: “rare legislative victory for its lead sponsor, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.)”.
Does any literate person in America really have any uncertainty about which political party Cruz belongs to, or what state he represents? Does anyone outside Washington D.C. keep Senatorial legislative record scorecards? Just asking. Even the choice of the photo (of Cruz) and its tag (see below) are a form of editorializing. I replaced the photo with what should normally be the subject of the article, Iran’s U.N. Envoy Hamid Aboutalebi. But hey, that’s just me, why bury the lede?
For the Washington Post, Ed O’Keefe and Robert Costa report: A measure that would bar Iran’s recently appointed ambassador to the United Nations from entering the United States easily passed the Senate on Monday, delivering a rare legislative victory for its lead sponsor, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.).
(this is where The Post felt compelled to add “a first-term senator who is considering a run for president in 2016”. Seriously?The Washington Post wants to remind you, not of the bill being sponsored, or why it’s being sponsored, but of their view of the career aspirations of the Texas Senator sponsoring it. Got the message yet?)
…has spent the last several days railing against Iran’s appointment of Hamid Aboutalebi (Finally! They can say his name. Bravo, Washington Post!) as its new top envoy to the United Nations in New York.
Note: the unaltered photo above, by Scott Applewhite, included in its metadata this file description, “2016_Presidential_Checklist_Cruz“. How’s that for a revealing bit of inside commentary by the Washington Post? If you’re in D.C., and you’re hip, you know Cruz ‘s motive for sponsoring this bill has nothing to do with Iran, U.S. foreign policy, or the U.N. He’s posturing, folks, it’s just an item on his “presidential checklist”.
Aboutalebi was a member of the student group that led the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. He has acknowledged that he worked with the organization that took over the embassy, but has played down his role in the crisis.
“It is unconscionable that in the name of international diplomatic protocol the United States would be forced to host a foreign national who showed a brutal disregard of the status of diplomats when they were stationed in his country. This person is an acknowledged terrorist.”
— Senator Ted Cruz
Aboutalebi’s appointment by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has been criticized by the Obama administration, which called the nomination “extremely troubling.” In recent months, Aboutalebi’s visa application to enter the United States as a diplomat has been stalled. As host nation of the United Nations’ headquarters, the United States generally admits the chosen representatives of U.N. members, with limited exceptions.
“…But let me conclude with one that seems a little more likely: a rerun of Bush’s 2000 path, in which Marco Rubio wins by uniting religious and moderate conservatives.
Rubio had a tough 2013, thanks to his unsuccessful immigration push, and he lacks the ideologically committed support of a Paul or Cruz or Huckabee. But his domestic-policy forays (first on poverty, soon on taxes) have gotten smarter since the immigration debacle, and events in Venezuela and Crimea may be making his hawkish foreign policy vision more appealing to conservatives.
Moreover, as much as the party and the country have changed since the Bush era, the best way to unify the G.O.P. is still to build bridges between religious conservatives and moderate conservatives — in effect, to seem relatable to Santorum voters while reassuring Romney voters. And Rubio, in affect and background and positioning, may be the right politician for that task…”
Mark Whittington writes: It is a rare occurrence that an essay in The Harvard Law Review can cause political controversy. But Ted Cruz, the junior senator from Texas and a Harvard Law Graduate himself, seems to have managed it. The essay in question is entitled “Limits on the Treaty Power” which explores the possible use of international treaties by an unscrupulous federal government to acquire power for itself and to take away power from the states.
The essay has lots of citations and footnotes, particularly in reference to a case before the Supreme Court called Bond v. the United States. Carol Anne Bond is a woman who attempted to poison a love rival by smearing a chemical on a door knob. The attack failed, but Bond is now serving a six year stretch for violating an anti chemical weapons treaty signed by the United States in the 1990s. The Supreme Court is to decide whether that conviction was constitutional. Cruz would like the court to place limits on the use of treaties to supersede state law.
Reviled by the Left, hated by the middle, disliked by his own party, the junior senator from Texas is exactly where he wants to be.
Alex Roarty writes: The Republican establishment despises Ted Cruz. And that’s great news for the senator from Texas: It’s the most prominent sign that he’s the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination.
Now those same conservatives, the kind who control primaries in early voting states like Iowa and South Carolina, vow they won’t listen again in 2016. “We have a lot of people claiming to be conservatives who constantly score for the other team. And people are disgusted by it,” said Bob Vander Plaats, the Iowa social-conservative power broker.
And that’s where Cruz comes in. The firebrand’s 21-hour faux-filibuster and no-surrender strategy during the government shutdown fight has endeared him to activists. The party establishment, meanwhile, is decrying a man they consider an ideologue unwilling to compromise even when the politics go south. Stay away from Ted Cruz, they say.
Jim Bourg/Reuters – House Speaker John Boehner speaks to the media at 1 a.m. after the House voted to send their funding bill with delays to Obamacare into a conference with the Senate, prompting a shutdown of portions of the U.S. government.
Robert Costa writes: On most weekday mornings, House Republicans huddle in a windowless room in the Capitol basement. Over pastries and coffee, they confer with the leadership and discuss strategy. Sometimes they complain; sometimes they cheer. This past week, it’s been more of the former. As the tensions grow, the GOP’s internal debate can seem like a circus — the tea party vs. establishment. But behind the scenes, House Republicans are more nuanced than that caricature.
1. House Republicans want to default.
When they’re on the cable news shows, House Republicans can sound aggressive and unyielding about the upcoming debt limit; they won’t extend the federal government’s borrowing limit, they often say, unless Democrats make major concessions. This public, tough-talking stance, though, is only part of the story. House Speaker John A. Boehnerprivately reassured colleagues on Thursday that he won’t let the nation default, and within the inner sanctum of the House GOP, he has never promoted missing the deadline.
Instead, Boehner is struggling to balance his right flank’s appetite for brinkmanship with his desire to cut a deal that’s palatable to conservatives. To do that, he frequently shies away from publicly conceding any ground. But he and the Republican leadership aren’t eager to be blamed for economic chaos and risk their party’s House majority in next year’s midterms.
So don’t read too much into the fight-till-the-death posturing of the House’s debt-limit warriors. They have influence but not total say. Look for smaller clues — Boehner’s closed-door meetings, the chatter about a larger fiscal package — as evidence of how the impasse will probably end: with an eleventh-hour, smaller compromise that Boehner has been slowly but surely shepherding.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, tells reporters that Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Republicans are the obstacle to ending the government shutdown crisis, at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 3, 2013. President Barack Obama brought congressional leaders to the White House on Wednesday for the first time since a partial government shutdown began, but there was no sign of progress toward ending an impasse that has idled federal workers and curbed services around the country. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Stephen Dinan reports: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid delivered a striking mea culpa on the Senate floor Friday as he opened the chamber, saying he and his colleagues have simply gotten too personal and nasty in their floor debates.
A day earlier Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, had scolded Mr. Reid for attacking Sen. Ted Cruz, another Texas Republican, by name as they debated the government shutdown. Mr. Cornyn read directly from the Senate Rules that prohibit members from impugning each other’s motives or conduct.
The apple really doesn’t fall far from the tree. Sen. Ted Cruz’s dad took to the stage at a recent Colorado event to deliver a scathing speech in support of his son’s filibuster try and to put Republicans-In-Name-Only on notice.
“What is sad is the RINOs who went running to vote with Harry Reid,” said Rafael Cruz, 74, who fled Cuba when he was a teenager and now lives near Dallas, Politico reported. He delivered the speech a few days ago during a Republican Party dinner event in Colorado, the video of which was just now coming to the attention of the national media.
The senior Mr. Cruz specifically condemned the 25 Republicans who fought against his son’s filibuster in the Senate.
“Unfortunately, some of those RINOs that have been there for 30 years want to be there for another 30,” he said, Politico reported. “They have no clue of what’s happening in the country. As a matter of fact, most of them refused to have town hall meetings because they didn’t want to face ‘we, the people.’ They have their minds made up and basically their idea is this: ‘You’re too stupid, and I know what I’m doing.’ Well, I’ll tell you what, we, the people, are not stupid. We, the people, ought to be smart enough to vote them right out of office or primary then, and put constitutional conservatives in their place.” Read the rest of this entry »
At the midpoint of the Acela corridor, heads of state, foreign ministers, and assorted luminaries from around the world gathered to toast themselves, make new friends, snub the president of the United States, and recycle platitudes on climate change, gun control, global poverty, the health care cost curve, and the Global South, all while clogging Midtown traffic, occupying posh hotels, fooling gullible media personalities, and enjoying the best of Manhattan’s entertainment, nightlife, culture, and cuisine. Read the rest of this entry »
Erick Erickson writes: There is a real and genuine disconnect between grassroots conservatives and many in Washington. Let’s first concede that, like with many politicians, a cult of personality has started developing around Ted Cruz, though from my vantage point it is not nearly as virulent as among some. But, there are some who, should Cruz fall flat on his face, would declare it all part of the plan and attack anyone who pointed out he wasn’t supposed to do that.
Cruz, in his filibuster, quoted Teddy Roosevelt’s “Man in the Arena” speech. He noted that credit belongs to the man in the arena “who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming.”
Cruz isn’t infallible. He admits it. But then his critics are not infallible either. Cruz, for all the flaws of his strategy, has articulated one. Other Republicans have not. They’ve only declared Cruz’s strategy, which is an actual strategy, isn’t really one because they don’t like it. John McCain, following Cruz on the floor of the Senate, declared surrender on Obamacare. Much of the base believes that privately the bulk of the GOP has given up. Read the rest of this entry »
After his disgraceful attacks on Cruz, including his reach-across-the-aisle, dog-in-the-manger response today, this should be the end of Senator John McCain as a voice of influence in the Republican party. Ditto his mini-me, Senator Lindsey Graham. Indeed, the entire Old Guard of business-as-usual “comity” fans passeth. When you care more about what the other side thinks, it’s probably time either to switch teams or step down.
There is new leadership in the GOP, whether the party wants to admit it or not: Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Jeff Sessions, and the others who stepped into the breach to spell the senator from Texas.
The popular reaction to Cruz will be immediate and noticeable; the more the old bulls carp, the more the public will rally to Cruz’s side. The country has been spoiling for a real fight since the election of 2008, and now it has one. Read the rest of this entry »
Michael Walsh eloquently writes: In the decades to come, historians may well look back on the partisan passage of Obamacare during President Obama’s first term and its disastrous implementation in the second as a Pyrrhic victory, the beginning of the end of the Progressive project to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America. Whether Senator Ted Cruz ultimately succeeds in his quest to defund Obamacare this time, his electrifying quasi-filibuster yesterday and today nevertheless marks a turning point in modern American political history — the day when conservatives turned their back on the collaborationist Republican Party and finally fought back. Read the rest of this entry »
Oemie Emery writes: President Obama and Sen. Ted Cruz have some things in common, including stunning ascents to political stardom, exotic and mixed ethnic backgrounds that give additional resonance, complex starts in life that give rise to birther/conspiracy theories, and reputations for brilliance that do not seem to translate well into dealing with political everyday life.
Their judgment is bad, their experience slight, and their egos enormous. They are cult figures with frenzied admirers, which compounds the problem. They are full of themselves and firmly believe they can do the impossible Read the rest of this entry »
John Nolte reports: You might remember the media gushing over an eight hour U.S. Senate “filibuster,” launched by the openly socialist Bernie Sanders, back in December of 2010. Only it wasn’t a filibuster. What Sanders did was exactly what Senator Cruz just did: he gave a long speech — which is not technically a filibuster. Only the media didn’t care about that distinction in 2010. It was only when Cruz aped Sanders that the media gave birth to the “fake filibuster” narrative. Read the rest of this entry »
David French writes: As I type this post, Senator Ted Cruz’s filibuster is winding down, and while the leftist outlets (and, sadly, some Republicans) spew forth their vitriol, I can’t help but think that moments like this and Senator Rand Paul’s “Stand with Rand” filibuster represent key turning points for the conservative movement. I’m far less interested in the Washington inside baseball of who’s mad at whom and far more interested in the effect of passionately demonstrated conservative conviction on our culture. Read the rest of this entry »
Sen. Ted Cruz has been speaking on the Senate floor for almost 19 hours, as of this post. The talk is not technically a filibuster — he can’t actually block the Senate from going about its business — but symbolically, it’s more or less the same thing. The point is to show one’s opposition to something through a demonstration of physical will.
Which is why you can forgive conservatives for being upset with the mainstream media’s coverage of the Cruz affair. When a Democrat like Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis filibusters against abortion restrictions, she is elevated to hero status, her tennis shoes become totems. When Cruz grandstands against Obamacare, he is a laughingstock in the eyes of many journalists on Twitter, an “embarrassment” in the eyes of The New York Times editorial board.
“Gee I wonder why NYT and WaPo and everyone else gave ecstatic coverage to Wendy Davis but not to Ted Cruz. I just can’t make sense of it!” John Podhoretz, the conservative columnist, tweeted on Wednesday morning. Read the rest of this entry »
“Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have, whether they can muster the support or not in this round, ensured the GOP cannot begin collaborating with the Democrats to fix what the voters want repealed.”
A curious moment happened on Fox News Sunday. Chris Wallace told Karl Rove that a number of Republicans in Congress had sent him opposition research on Ted Cruz once Fox announced Cruz would be on.
Rove responded. He said this was all happening because Cruz and Mike Lee had not worked out strategy in the regular Senate Republican Conference lunches on Thursdays. Rove said that was what was supposed to happen. Except that for a year now, Senate Republicans have routinely leaked the proceedings of those meetings to the New York Times and Washington Post in ways designed to harm Cruz, Lee, and others who side with them. Read the rest of this entry »
Andrew Johnson reports: UPDATE: 2:48 p.m. “I intend to speak until I can no longer stand,” Cruz said in his opening remarks of his filibuster. Cruz was joined by his partner in his effort to defund Obamacare, Utah senator Mike Lee. Cruz has already played on the theme to “make DC listen” early on in his remarks and his Twitter account has started using the #MakeDCListen hashtag.
A Republican Senate source tells NRO’s Betsy Woodruff that Texas senator Ted Cruz will mount a “talking filibuster” this afternoon to stop a cloture vote on the continuing resolution that would defund Obamacare, which is set to come up for a vote tomorrow. Cruz is expected to begin the filibuster shortly after 2:30 p.m.
Asked how long he’ll keep it up for, Cruz said, “We’ll see.”
Sen. Ted Cruz leaves the floor of the Senate after a testy exchange with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at the start of legislative business, at the Capitol in Washington, Monday, Sept. 23, 2013.
The Senate plunged into debate over legislation to fund the government while cutting of money for the new health-care law, with both sides accusing the other of threatening to bring about a government shutdown.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) opened debate by denouncing the bill passed by the House Friday that embodies conservatives’ campaign to “defund Obamacare,” as the health law is known. Read the rest of this entry »
Washington’s Boogey-Man Bad-Boy Voodoo-Doll Senator
How does Senator Ted Cruz freak out liberals? Usually by being good at what he does.
Several times a day, especially if he’s out travelin’ and talkin’ to folks, as he always is when the U.S. Senate isn’t in session, Ted Cruz will stand before an audience and reflect, seemingly for the first time, about the generational shift taking place in the Republican party. Read the rest of this entry »
Henry Adams said that politics is the systematic organization of hatreds. For the left, over the past year it has seemed at times to be the systematic organization of hatred of Ted Cruz.The freshman senator is not the first Texan to be so honored. In fact, the state isn’t holding up its end if, at any given moment, it isn’t throwing onto the national scene at least one Republican reviled by the other side.
The party’s highest-profile Texans, George W. Bush and Rick Perry, tended to match inarticulateness with cowboy swagger and lend themselves to mockery as intellectual lightweights. Bush went to Yale and Harvard Business School, yet no one naturally thinks of him as an Ivy Leaguer. The two Lone Star State governors played into the left’s stereotypes so nicely that if they didn’t exist, Gail Collins would have had to make them up.
Cruz is different — a Princeton and Harvard man who not only matriculated at those fine institutions but excelled at them. Champion debater at Princeton. Magna cum laude graduate at Harvard. Supreme Court clerkship, on the way to Texas solicitor general and dozens of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Cruz is from the intellectual elite, but not of it, a tea party conservative whose politics are considered gauche at best at the storied universities where he studied. He is, to borrow the words of the 2009 H.W. Brands biography of FDR, a traitor to his class. Read the rest of this entry »
President Obama’s lecturecommencement speech to the Naval Academy graduates on Friday left behind such a poor and lingering aftertaste, I thought this commencement speech from Sen. Ted Cruz to the graduates of Hillsdale might make a nice sort of belated palate cleanser. Sen. Cruz’s message was all about the inherent virtues of freedom, the American meritocracy, and the accompanying economic mobility, in which people’s rises and falls are directly related to their “talent, passion, perseverance, and willingness to fight for the American dream.” The best part about it all, of course, is that by pursuing and developing your own unique talents and interests, you are helping to contribute to the type of robust economic growth that is truest and most efficient method for lifting people out of poverty, no matter how much big-government progressive types will extoll the virtues of collectivism and “shared sacrifice” and equality of outcomes. Those fake virtues are inhibitors to economic growth, and “more and more government is not the answer. To say otherwise is to ignore the fact that all major European nations have higher levels of public spending than the United States does, and that all of them are poorer. Human beings are not happiest when they’re taken care of by the state. Areas under the yoke of dependency on government are among the least joyish parts of our society. The story of Julia is not an attractive utopia. We all flourish instead when afforded opportunity, the ability to work and create and accomplish. Economic growth and opportunity is the answer that works.” Enjoy:
I saw this live on Sunday’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos broadcast, and it got my attention. Carville’s observation is surprising only in how solitary and contrary it is, coming from Democratic party figure. Carville’s appearance is revealing. He’s one of the few in this camp that isn’t missing the bigger picture. He’s saying what is already obvious to non-Democrats. Yes, Cruz is a fascinating and dangerous guy. He has the potential to be a powerful campaigner, standard-bearer, and persuasive communicator, it’s true. Cruz is absolutely fearless. Cruz’s willingness to leap ahead of rank, step on toes, pick fights, and make people uncomfortable isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.
There’s a reason Cruz is eager to debate his opponents, and his opponents are eager to change the subject. It’s Cruz’s strength. He may look like everyone’s negative stereotype of a cocky backwoods Texas Junior politician, but he’s got a few tricks up his sleeve. Cruz is a weaponized Ivy Leaguer, a Harvard Debate Champion. Mark my words, in a few years, Cruz will have a collection of trophies: the heads of slain opponents mounted above his fireplace.
While most of Cruz’s Democrat opponents (and some Republicans, too) are busy trying to dismiss Cruz, brand him as annoying and irrelevant, Carville’s the first guy to actually get it.
It’s uneasy, seeing praise like this from the opposing camp, it makes me wonder what Carville’s motive is. Carville is a peculiar guy who rarely censors himself. While Carville has a habit of speaking his mind–still–I see it as a warning. Beware of talk show stunts like this. Perhaps it’s harmless straight talk, and there’s no hidden agenda here. But I wouldn’t bet on it. — the Butcher
VIDEO LINK (I tried embedding it, but had to settle for an outbound link)
JAMES CARVILLE: I think he is the most talented and fearless Republican politician I’ve seen in the last 30 years. I further think that he’s going to run for president and he is going to create something. I’m not sitting here saying he’s going to win, and I think Senator DeMint is right. I’ve listened to excerpts of his speech in South Carolina. He touches every button, and this guy has no fear. He just keeps plowing ahead. And he is going to be something to watch. And a lot of Republicans feel this way, George, and you hear this a lot: “If we only got someone who was articulate and was for what we were for, we would win elections. And we get these John McCains and these Mitt Romneys and these squishy guys that can’t do anything.” Well, there’s one thing this guy is not – he ain’t squishy, not in the least.