Ted Cruz To Announce He’s Running For President

Ted Cruz kicks off with the first of what is likely to be a string of candidates getting into the 2016 race in the coming month.

Ted Cruz

The Houston Chronicle, in a report last night that has since been confirmed by several other media outlets, broke the story last night that Texas Senator Ted Cruz will be announcing his candidacy for President in a speech tomorrow at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia:

Sen. Ted Cruz plans to announce Monday that he will run for president of the United States, accelerating his already rapid three-year rise from a tea party insurgent in Texas into a divisive political force in Washington.

Cruz will launch a presidential bid outright rather than form an exploratory committee, said senior advisers with direct knowledge of his plans, who spoke on condition of anonymity because an official announcement had not been made yet. They say he is done exploring and is now ready to become the first Republican presidential candidate.

The senator is scheduled to speak Monday at a convocation ceremony at Liberty University in Virginia, where he is expected to declare his campaign for the presidency.

Over the course of the primary campaign, Cruz will aim to raise between $40 million and $50 million, according to advisers, and dominate with the same tea party voters who supported his underdog Senate campaign in 2012. But the key to victory, Cruz advisers believe, is to be the second choice of enough voters in the party’s libertarian and social conservative wings to cobble together a coalition to defeat the chosen candidate of the Republican establishment.

The firebrand Texan may have few Senate colleagues who will back his White House bid, but his appeal to his party’s base who vote disproportionately in Republican primaries could make him competitive in Iowa and beyond.

Yet critics of Cruz argue that he will have trouble raising high-dollar donations from traditional contributors, will land few endorsements from the nation’s political establishment and be unable to escape comparisons to President Barack Obama, who also ran for president in his first Senate term. And if he advances to a general election, Cruz trails likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton solidly in early public opinion polls.

“I don’t consider him a mainstream candidate, and usually to win you’ve got to be inside the 45-yard lines,” said Greg Valliere, a political adviser to Wall Street firms who believes that if Cruz did earn the nomination, he would not win more than a dozen states in the general election. “The enthusiasm for him will be tremendous in maybe a third of the party, but another third of the party will be strongly opposed and another third of the party will be wary.”

Senior advisers say Cruz will run as an unabashed conservative eager to mobilize like-minded voters who cannot stomach the choice of the “mushy middle” that he has ridiculed on the stump over the past two months in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

“Ted is exactly where most Republican voters are,” said Mike Needham, who heads the conservative advocacy group Heritage Action for America. “Most people go to Washington and get co-opted. And Ted clearly is somebody that hasn’t been.”

Cruz will be the first candidate from either major party to formally enter the race, but he’s not going to be the last. Reports last week indicated that Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is likely to be entering the race some time in early April shortly after Easter, with many pundits pointing to a speech in New Hampshire scheduled for April 8th as the likely announcement date. Ben Carson, who was the first major party candidate for form an exploratory committee, seems likely to enter the race soon as well, and we will likely see candidates such as Scott Walker, Rick Perry, and others on the Republican side start to throw their own hats in the ring in response to Cruz’s move. Jeb Bush, who also formed an exploratory committee, may wait just a bit longer to get into the race since he doesn’t have the same name recognition issues that other candidates do. On the Democratic side, meanwhile, Hillary Clinton seems likely to enter the Democratic race early next month as well given the fact that there are no more paid speeches on her public schedule and reports have indicated that staffers who have been hired to work on a Clinton campaign have been told to report to work beginning April 1st. In addition to Clinton, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley and former Virginia Senator James Webb will likely enter the race sooner rather than later, and may possibly even do so before Clinton’s announcement. Given that we’re at the beginning of what will likely be a tidal wave of Presidential announcements, then, Cruz’s campaign is making a smart move by jumping in first. For at least a week or so, the political media will be giving him a lot of free air time since he’ll officially be the only person in the 2016 race at the time. The closer we get to the time when the “big” names like Clinton and Bush enter the race, the less likely a lesser known candidate will get that kind of coverage.

Making the announcement at Liberty University, as opposed to in Iowa, New Hampshire or Texas, is somewhat unusual for a Presidential candidate, but not at all surprising for Cruz since, as the Chronicle notes, appealing to social conservatives will be a huge part of his campaign:

Forty percent of the electorate may vote for the establishment candidate, the advisers predict, but Cruz will “crush” with the 25 percent of voters who come from the tea party bracket. He will then peel some second-choice support from the 10 percent who consider themselves libertarians and from the rest of the voters who identify as social conservatives.

Advisers to Cruz, the son of a pastor, believe he can make a special argument to these religious voters like the thousands of students he is expected to address at a basketball arena Monday at Liberty, a school founded by leader of the religious right Jerry Falwell. About half of the voters in the Iowa caucus this year are expected to be evangelical Christians.

That theory – and those percentages – is described by some Republican hands as overly charitable to the element of the party that Cruz represents. Henry Olsen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank, said the Cruz campaign was dramatically underestimating the voting power of the liberals, moderates and establishment Republicans in a presidential primary. Olsen argued that about 70 percent of the party will choose the candidate who aligns with the left or the center.

“They seem to like experience, they seem to like rhetorical modulation, they seem to like conservatism – but not in excess,” Olsen explained. “Ted Cruz has nothing to say to the moderates.”

Appealing to social conservatives isn’t a bad strategy per se, and it’s certainly something that makes sense for Cruz given that he’s been pandering to that element of the GOP since before he was even elected Senator, however it doesn’t seem like it’s a viable path to victory. First of all, as noted, you simply can’t win the Republican nomination by relying on one segment of the party coalition. It can help in states like Iowa and South Carolina, no doubt, as well as in some states in the Deep South and those  states in the Midwest and Mountain West that hold caucuses other than primaries. By itself, though, it simply isn’t enough to win the nomination. Pat Robertson learned it in 1988, Pat Buchanan learned it in 1992, Mike Huckabee learned it it in 2008, and Rick Santorum learned it in 2012. To win the nomination, a Republican candidate has to appeal beyond this limited base to a broader coalition of primary voters. This is especially true in the large, delegate rich states, most of which hold open primaries which attract a far different electorate than, say, the Iowa Caucuses or South Carolina Primary. The successful candidate for the GOP nomination will appeal not just to social conservatives, but also to economic conservatives, the business community, the more-or-less libertarian wing of the party, and the vast swath of “moderates” in the middle. Ted Cruz seems ill suited to be that person to say the very least. Second, Cruz is unlikely to be the only candidate in the race trying to appeal to these voters in the primaries next year. To some degree, all of the candidates will try to appeal to some portion of this group, of course, but most of all potential candidates such as Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum. Not all of these candidates will end up running, of course, but many of them will and, like Cruz, they are going to be making their appeal to the same voters that he’s relying upon. The odds that he’d be the one to rise to the top in the fight seem slim at best.

You can see evidence of Cruz’s problems in recent polling of the potential Republican field. Despite the fact that he has become something of a conservative darling since winning his Senate seat in 2012, Cruz is near the bottom of the list in the polls. The current RealClearPolitics average of the national polls of the potential field, for example, puts Cruz at 4.7%, behing everyone except Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, and John Kaisch. He stands in roughly the same position in the polling of Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire, and doesn’t even show up in the polling in South Carolina. As Philip Bump notes, Cruz enters the race with less support than any candidate in more than twenty years. While those numbers will likely rise once he enters the race, it seems unlikely that Cruz will be able to overcome the negative opinions that have come into existence about him, opinions which are based largely on his own actions and policy positions. In the end, I suspect that these will be too much of an albatross for him to overcome.

However this plays out, though, the 2016 race officially starts tomorrow. It’s going to be a long twenty months.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2016, US Politics,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Scott says:

    As a Texan I offer the following comments: To announce his candidacy at Liberty University is an insult to Texas and will be viewed as such.

    Second, he hasn’t accomplished a darned thing since he was elected Senator. All he has done is self-aggrandizement. And obviously so. I think he will be viewed as fradulently taking taxpayers’ dollars.

    I think he should resign as Senator so we can have suitable representation. I hope others call for the same thing.

  2. michael reynolds says:

    Just a minor editing note: shouldn’t it be Liberty “University?”

  3. anjin-san says:

    Roll up! Roll up for the clown car tour!
    Step right this way!

  4. EddieInCA says:

    I, for one, am excited.

    Cruz will be better for Democrats than any other single person. Not only will he make the clown car veer farther right, but his self-inflicted problems will fuel his fans into further rage at the “liberal media” [for reporting accurately what Ted Cruz actually says}.

    Additionally, it takes the “not qualified” cannard off the table as it relates to Hilary. I think most people will take Hillary’s resume over Cruz’s when it comes to qualifications for POTUS.

  5. Modulo Myself says:

    By itself, though, it simply isn’t enough to win the nomination. Pat Robertson learned it in 1988, Pat Buchanan learned it in 1992, Mike Huckabee learned it it in 2008, and Rick Santorum learned it in 2012.

    And 3 out of 4 of these examples ended in Republicans losing the race for Presidency. I don’t think Cruz has a chance to win the primary. But if I were a conservative, I would think long and hard about the supposed payoff of having the respectable big money candidate run.

  6. Inhumans99 says:

    You all laugh now, but at this time in 2017 some of us (almost said all of us, but I stopped myself, as Jenos, and others would not rant against Cruz) might be ranting on this site by saying President Cruz drove me up a wall by saying XYZ…, it could happen, just saying.

    I am not a fan of Ted Cruz, but we really should be careful in declaring someone as unelectable at this point in time.

    Netanyahu is someone that is a firebrand, and enough voters liked his rhetoric to once again place him and his party at the top of the mountain in Iraeli politics.

    I guess the above was my mid to long way of getting around to saying never say never.

  7. Gustopher says:

    For some reason, Ted Cruz has always reminded me of Bill Murray — like a bad actor portraying Murray in a movie about a younger Bill Murray portraying a parody of a right wing Senator.

  8. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Speaking candidly, Ted is a sociopath.

  9. dennis says:

    @Doug Mataconis

    However this plays out, though, the 2016 race officially starts tomorrow. It’s going to be a long twenty months.

    Not for me. I’m staying out of it and plan on surfing porn for the next 20 months.

    J/K

  10. EddieInCA says:

    @Inhumans99:

    No. It can’t. Cruz can’t ever get to 270 electoral votes. Give me a scenario where he can. Romney I could see. McCain, until Pailn, had a path to 270. Jon Huntsman could get to 270, as could Jeb Bush, if all things broke correctly. Cruz, Paul, Santorum. Walker, Carson, Bachman, Pence, Trump have no path to 270.

    It’s just math.

  11. dennis says:

    @Modulo Myself:

    “But if I were a conservative, I would think . . .”

    Now see, Mod, this is where you’re going off the rails …

  12. humanoid.panda says:

    @Inhumans99:

    Netanyahu is someone that is a firebrand, and enough voters liked his rhetoric to once again place him and his party at the top of the mountain in Iraeli politics.

    Difference is that Bibi is close to the preferences of the median Israeli voter. Cruz is very far from that.

  13. Andre Kenji says:

    The first rider of the Clown car.

  14. M. Bouffant says:

    One thing for which I will blame Obama:
    Every first-term Senator who’s deluded himself into thinking he’s Presidential timber.

  15. Another Mike says:

    @M. Bouffant:

    Every first-term Senator who’s deluded himself into thinking he’s Presidential timber.

    Sometimes it is not a delusion. Two in a row. It can happen.

  16. An Interested Party says:

    Sometimes it is not a delusion. Two in a row. It can happen.

    Indeed…Hillary Clinton has a very good chance of being our next president…

  17. Paul Hooson says:

    Nothing to see here….Move on. – Far better products exist than this Canadian import…

  18. CSK says:

    @Gustopher:

    I’ve made that point before on this blog. He DOES in fact resemble Bill Murray in the role of Nick the Lounge Lizard.

    Purely coincidentally, I’m sure, Cruz has a book coming out in June, and it’s now available for pre-order on Amazon.

    He’ll bail by next September or October, after the book sales have peaked.

  19. JohnMcC says:

    @Paul Hooson: Wondered when someone would bring up the ‘birther’ case against Sen Cruz. It is noteworthy that his mother is a Delaware native so he no doubt meets the constitutional requirement. What is more interesting is that his Dad came to the U.S. back in the late 50’s, moved to Canada and promptly became a citizen there but when he returned to the U.S. in ’74 he remained a Canadian until ’95. He said once that he just forgot. A diligent oppo researcher could spend productive time with that.

  20. jukeboxgrad says:

    There is already one Republican Senator on record saying Cruz cannot be president (link):

    You have to be born in America to be president.

  21. Steve V says:

    Omg, it’s like alternate-universe Obama. I predict some Republicans will declare him the messiah while still mocking and deriding Obama as “the One.”

  22. James Pearce says:

    appealing to social conservatives will be a huge part of his campaign

    That’s how you get elected to Congress, not the White House, so I’d rate his actual chances as slim to none.

    Also, I think it’s safe to say that anyone who signed the Iran letter will not be sitting in the Oval Office come Jan 2017. And really, they shouldn’t expect to.

  23. OzarkHillbilly says:

    I can’t wait.

  24. Paul Hooson says:

    @JohnMcC: Sadly, the birther thing could have been far more common against many more political figures. Gov. George Romney was born in Mexico of American Mormon parents in a Mormon community claiming to reject the U.S.. and “living in exile” by their own claims, however they eventually returned to the U.S. despite this seeming partial rejection of their citizenship. Romney was a very positive political figure and a skillful businessman, despite his parents extreme religious views partially rejecting of American citizenship.

  25. Slugger says:

    Does anyone know the risk/benefit ratio of running for President? The candidate has to put in time, but he gets a lot of facetime on the local media wherever he goes. It probably costs a lot of money to campaign, but very little comes out of the candidate’s personal pocket. If you raise a bunch of money from donors, won’t some stick to your pockets? At a minimum you can probably hire close friends to be campaign officers and pay them nicely.
    I bet that declaring as a candidate is usually a good career move even if you lose after all sooner or later Sen. McCain will have to give up the Sunday morning TV shows.
    Seems to me that this is a mov full of win for Sen. Cruz.

  26. Tyrell says:

    When can we expect an announcement from Alan Keyes ?

  27. C. Clavin says:

    President Ted Cruz.
    Seriously?

  28. Gustopher says:

    Is he skipping the exploratory phase because he doesn’t want to see any evidence that he will never, ever win the Presidency?

  29. aFloridian says:

    I just want to note that the timing is unfortunate. The prospect of a Cruz presidency would have been far more appropriately announced in another 10 days (that’s April Fool’s in case I didn’t make it clear enough).

  30. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Tyrell:

    One can only dream, but if wishing could make it so … 😀

    Toss Allen West and Michelle Bachmann in for good measure. As long as we’re going to have another clown car and all …

  31. al-Ameda says:

    I realize that I’m approaching “watch out what you wish for” territory, but … yes, I do hope that he’s in it for the long run – he’s a narcissist, a raving egomaniac, and the entertainment value of a Cruz candidacy is enormous.

  32. Gustopher says:

    @al-Ameda: At the risk of being all Superdestroyer, the Democrats have to actively lose for the Republicans to win. Not heading to a one party state, but the state demographics really push it that way.

    And, Cruz will be no worse than Paul or JEB! or Walker as president. So, let’s got for the most amusing, it won’t make things worse.

  33. Todd says:

    @Gustopher: Cruz would be much worse than Jeb, Walker, or even Paul. And the kicker is, if any of them win in 2016, it will almost certainly mean that the Republicans have also maintained control of both houses of Congress. As entertaining as candidate Cruz would be, given the however slight chance that we could have a Republican President in January 2017, I’d feel much more comfortable if their nominee was at least semi-sane.

  34. superdestroyer says:

    @Gustopher:

    Do you really think that the Democrats can screw up enough to bring all of the swing states into play (and this is considering that states like Virginia really are still swing states).

    What is interesting is how much media attention a second tier candidate who has zero chance of winning is getting.

  35. superdestroyer says:

    @Todd:

    I doubt that the Republicans will retain control of the Senate after the 2016 elections. It would mean that several Republicans managed to win in states that are going to be easily carried by the Democrats. Such splits almost never happen.

    See http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/228020-10-senators-who-could-lose-in-2016

  36. gVOR08 says:

    @Slugger:

    Does anyone know the risk/benefit ratio of running for President?

    I don’t understand the economics of it, but given the number of people who do it, apparently pretending to run for president pays pretty well.

  37. Mu says:

    So how is he going to get around that Canadian birth issue? You’d think his own supporters would be the ones screaming loudest about it. After all, we haven’t head a president burn a British subject since Harrison.

  38. Tony W says:

    I heard he had three dates picked out for his announcement, but unfortunately he couldn’t recall the last one – so he just went with one of the two choices.

  39. Moosebreath says:

    Josh Marshall re-posts some recollections from Ted’s time at Princeton and Harvard Law:

    “As my correspondent notes, Ted managed to distinguish himself as a arrogant a#@hole at Harvard Law School, which is an amazing accomplishment since the competition there for that description is intense.”

  40. Todd says:

    @superdestroyer: I didn’t say I think it’s likely that Republicans will retain control of the Senate … as long as things go fairly close to the way they are expected to. But a President Ted Cruz (or even Walker, Bush, Paul or Christy really) would be a very unexpected outcome; and if it did happen, it’s almost a certainty that a lot of Senate races would unexpectedly go the Republicans way as well.

  41. dmhlt says:

    So the burning question appears to be

    “How Many Clowns Can You Fit in a Car?”

    Turns out that “Car and Driver” magazine actually looked into it, and published a story on “The Physics of Clown Cars”

    http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-physics-of-clown-cars-feature

    It will probably be very handy for the next year or so.

  42. Electroman says:

    @Mu: Cruz was born after 1967, so he wasn’t a British Subject at birth. He was a Canadian, something that became legally distinct in 1967.

  43. Mu says:

    Wow, presidential candidates are now younger than me. I’ve missed the train.
    But that only kills my historical reference, still makes him Canadian.

  44. PJ says:

    @dmhlt:

    Turns out that “Car and Driver” magazine actually looked into it, and published a story on “The Physics of Clown Cars”

    http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-physics-of-clown-cars-feature

    It will probably be very handy for the next year or so.

    Not sure if you noticed, but it’s from the April 2011 issue of Car and Driver… 🙂

  45. Gustopher says:

    @Todd: Given how well Cruz has demonstrated he can work with others, I doubt a Cruz administration would be as effective at getting things done as most of his more plausible clown car colleagues.

    His ineffectiveness would really be one of the saving graces of a Cruz administration,mand something that Bush just wouldn’t be able to deliver on.

  46. JohnMcC says:

    @Moosebreath: Andrew Ferguson from the right-ward side of things had a lengthy profile of Sen Cruz back in Sept ’13 strangely called ‘Washington Builds a Bugaboo’. There’s lots of laudatory prose since it’s in Weekly Standard but the reader is left with the firm impression that Mr Ferguson found our Rafael to be a pretty complete horse’s patoot.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/washington-builds-bugaboo_753924.html

  47. grumpy realist says:

    @Gustopher: Belief is all that counts with these bozos. Forget prudence, pragmatism, and reality.

    I think this is more of a case of “running for POTUS to increase my brand recognition” however. Cruz doesn’t want to be POTUS; he wants to be lead talk show host on FOX.

  48. Mikey says:

    I’ve a Facebook “friend” (never met the guy, he’s my wife’s cousin through marriage) who’s pretty much the textbook definition of “staunch conservative.” He’s absolutely giddy about Cruz’s announcement. I’m pretty sure he’s representative of the Tea Party (or, as my wife calls them, “Tea Toddlers”) wing of the GOP. They are absolutely certain a “true conservative” like Cruz is striking fear into the hearts of Democrats everywhere, that he will (in the words of the aforementioned “friend”) “eat their lunch.”

    What’s even more mystifying is this guy’s no dummy, he’s actually pretty bright, with a great deal of education (including degrees in history and political science).

    Just goes to show again how good some people are at compartmentalizing. They get to some subjects and just power down their thinking brains.

  49. Jack says:

    – A man who has spent only a few years as a Senator
    – Only qualification is Harvard Law School
    – Funny last name
    – Questions about his birth certificate
    – May not “really” be a US citizen by birth

    Definitely not qualified…uh, wait.

  50. Scott F. says:

    Doug hits it when he states:

    … it seems unlikely that Cruz will be able to overcome the negative opinions that have come into existence about him, opinions which are based largely on his own actions and policy positions.

    Personally, I find Ted Cruz refreshing despite the air of a**hole he gives off. It’s because he hasn’t discovered his “inner voice” and therefore he says out loud and in plain language the ideas most Republicans believe, but only say behind closed doors or in veiled references.

    I’ll be pulling for ol’ Ted in the primaries, since he will offer the starkest contrast possible between true Republican values and the faint semblance of Democratic values Mrs. Clinton will represent. (He could even allow Hillary to settle further to the left and embrace the “my being a woman is a feature, not a bug” platform you’d imagine she’d relish.) Mr. Cruz won’t be making any “47%” gaffes caught on tape at a private function. That line will be featured in his stump speeches.

  51. James P says:

    Disclaimer: I am a Walker supporter.

    That said, comparing Ted Cruz to a punk thug community organizer is ridiculous. Ted Cruz is a brilliant man. He is easily the most intelligent person in the Senate. Barack Hussein Obama is someone who has never accomplished anything in his entire pathetic life.

    His speech today was simply brilliant. He discussed restoring American greatness and taking our country back from people like Hussein Obama. Obama is an interloper. By accident of birth he happens to be American simply because his mother happened to be geographically located in Hawaii when he entered the world. In no other sense is Obama an American.

    Ted Cruz is an American patriot who embodies the best traditions of our founding fathers and the values that make this country great. Ted Cruz believes in American exceptionalism. He thinks this country is worth saving. He will stand with our greatest ally Israel in defeating Obama’s terrorist allies and make the world great again.

  52. jukeboxgrad says:

    Cruz doesn’t want to be POTUS; he wants to be lead talk show host on FOX.

    Exactly. Here’s how I said that a while back:

    Cruz is not planning to become president of the United States. He just wants to be president of the tea party. A much easier job, much better pay, and no term limits. And he is well-qualified for the position because he knows how to fleece the rubes.

  53. C. Clavin says:

    @James P:

    Barack Hussein Obama is someone who has never accomplished anything in his entire pathetic life.

    Shucks…you crack me up.
    That statement is just so blatantly ignorant of fact that it defies reason.
    At the same time…Ted Cruz is the poster child of mendaciousness. The only person that is ahead of him on Politifacts list of liars is Ben Carson. That’s an amazing fact when considered with your opinion that he:

    embodies the best traditions of our founding fathers and the values that make this country great.

    Being a pathological liar embodies those traditions and values?
    If you opinions are based on lies and mis-information that your opinion isn’t worth much.

  54. al-Ameda says:

    @James P:

    Ted Cruz is an American patriot who embodies the best traditions of our founding fathers and the values that make this country great. Ted Cruz believes in American exceptionalism. He thinks this country is worth saving. He will stand with our greatest ally Israel in defeating Obama’s terrorist allies and make the world great again.

    LOL Put down the Twinkies, pour the rest of that 48oz Mountain Dew into the toilet, open the black-out drapes, go take a walk. Get out of the Bunker more often.

  55. James P says:

    @al-Ameda: [“– he’s a narcissist, a raving egomaniac,”]

    Does that apply to B Hussein Obama as well?

  56. al-Ameda says:

    @James P:

    Does that apply to B Hussein Obama as well?

    No, no it does not.
    Next question?

  57. C. Clavin says:
  58. James P says:

    @C. Clavin: Having an opinion which is contrary to yours is not a lie.

    IF you called Obama a good president I wouldn’t call you a liar – I’d just call you sadly and tragically wrong.

    In 2008, my first reaction to Obama’s resume was that he was not qualified to be a shift manager at the local Dairy Queen. He has never held a real job – ever.

    Obama was admitted to good schools on the basis of affirmative action and applying as a foreign exchange student (using his Indonesian citizenship). That’s not an accomplishment — that’s gaming the system.

    That’s all Obama has ever done – game the system. He won elections by having his opponents thrown off the ballot. He was admitted to good schools by using the back door through subterfuge. He reads speeches off a TelePrompter. Those are not accomplishments.

    The guy is a useless punk community organizer. He’s not qualified to do ANYTHING.

    Cruz on the other hand is both a genius and a patriot ——- and this is coming from someone who supports one of his opponents (Walker).

  59. Mikey says:

    @James P:

    Barack Hussein Obama is someone who has never accomplished anything in his entire pathetic life.

    Well, besides that whole being elected President twice thing. You know, President ot the United States, Commander in Chief, “Leader of the Free World,” that bit. Twice.

    American exceptionalism

    Here’s a term a lot of Republicans toss out while not knowing what it actually means. It has a specific definition most of them have never heard. They think it just means “America is tops, man! The best! Above the rest! You know…EXCEPTIONAL!”

  60. al-Ameda says:

    @James P:

    Cruz on the other hand is both a genius and a patriot

    He hates government yet he’s been a government employee much of his life.
    I suppose that that’s true genius.

  61. James P says:

    @Mikey: That’s not what American exceptionalism is.

    We are not BETTER than the rest – we are DIFFERENT than the rest.

    Britain is also a free country, but their founding was very different than ours. I don’t think I am better than someone who is British, but I do think that America is a different (I didn’t say better) country. I lived in Britain for five years so I know first hand that the societal ethos is very different.

    Our foundation was different than that of any other nation. We are very much the EXCEPTION – that’s the genesis of the term exceptionalism.

    Liberty was the foundational purpose of America. What other nation can make that claim. We are very much the exception to the foundation of most nation – that makes us exceptional.

  62. grumpy realist says:

    @James P: Dude, I doubt you’ve spent ten minutes outside your mom’s basement.

  63. James P says:

    @Mikey: The fact that he was elected twice makes him a con-man. Bernie Madoff conned people too. I wouldn’t call that an accomplishment.

    The fact that he was elected twice is more of a commentary on the stupidity of the American electorate than it is on him. The man is a total fraud – the fact that a very small majority of Americans fell for his scam doesn’t mean he is not a con man.

    He mobilized the greedy free stuff crowd of moochers, grifters, deadbeats, and leaches into an electoral coalition.

    Cruz managed to shutdown the government despite being only one out of one hundred. That’s more of an accomplishment than anything Hussein Obama has ever done.

  64. grumpy realist says:

    Like many other Republican would-be 2016 candidacies, a Cruz presidential bid doesn’t have a realistic chance of succeeding, but then Cruz has already shown during his very brief stint in office that success in achieving tangible results is not what interests him. Cruz likes to present himself as the most committed opponent of Obama’s agenda, and it makes no difference that his stunts and tactics have had absolutely no success in making a dent in that agenda. What counts for him is demonstrating the intensity of his opposition and pandering to voters that care a lot more about affect than they do about policy substance.

    Cruz is a skillful demagogue, and he’ll be able to put on quite a show during candidate debates, but that will probably take the form of accusing the other candidates of being sell-outs and attributing views to them that they don’t hold. That is normally how he responds to criticism from within his own party. He also repeatedly misleads his followers about what can be achieved by following his lead, and then denounces people on his side for “failing” to defer to his bad leadership and blames them for the failure he orchestrated.

    — Larison

    JUST like James P. No wonder he adores Cruz.

  65. C. Clavin says:

    @James P:
    Do you have a rading comprehension problem?
    I didn’t say your opinion is a lie. I said your opinion is based on mis-information and lies.
    Ipso facto your opinion is mis-informed at the very least.

    Obama was admitted to good schools on the basis of affirmative action and applying as a foreign exchange student (using his Indonesian citizenship).

    Please provide verification of this.

  66. Mikey says:

    @James P: We shouldn’t be downvoting this comment. The term “American exceptionalism” is, as I stated, often misused, but James P has the proper definition here.

  67. Pete S says:

    @James P:

    By accident of birth he happens to be American simply because his mother happened to be geographically located in Hawaii when he entered the world. In no other sense is Obama an American.

    It pains me to say this, but I think James is on to something here. Speaking as a Canadian, could everyone please apply the same logic to Mr Cruz and stop talking about how he was born here. We don’t want him. Let his own incompetence be the disqualifying factor in this idiotic campaign.

  68. Hazelrah says:

    If James P. is not performance art I hope he gets a job as a Republican spokesperson.

  69. Mikey says:

    @James P: You were doing pretty well there for a minute, what with actual understanding of the term “American exceptionalism” and all.

    Too bad you regressed with this “Obama as con man” nonsense. Oh well.

  70. C. Clavin says:

    @James P:

    Cruz on the other hand is both a genius and a patriot

    Cruz does not believe the scientists re: AGW…that’s not genius….that’s ignorance.
    He believes a single cell is the same as a person…that’s not genius…that’s ignorance.
    He thinks the IRS has 100,000 agents…that’s not genius…that’s ignorance.
    66% of his claims reviewed by Politifact are mostly false or worse….how much genius does it take to lie. And seriously…if you have to lie to make your point, why even bother?
    At any rate…I don’t think that word…genius…means what you think it means.

  71. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @grumpy realist:

    Ted’s value is that he, and others like him who will undoubtedly be throwing their hats in soon as well, serve to push the temperature of the Republican primaries far (far, far, far) to the right.

    Sure, he’s a demagogue, and I remain convinced that he’s a sociopath, but he’s a useful sociopath / demagogue. He has zero chance of being nominated, but his presence in the primaries will ensure that whichever other Republican does eventually get nominated will have had to run to the far right to get nominated – and that will alienate him from moderates, without which he has no hope of winning the White House. It also ensures that Republicans will spend untold resources on attacking each other, leaving them weaker heading into the general election.

    Given Clinton’s approval numbers, the race will be a challenge for Republicans from the outset, but this replay of 2012 makes it close to a lock for Democrats IMO.

    Let the Republican presidential primary race get ugly enough (and it will get ugly – that just became a certainty) and it could produce an anti-Republican tenor that will affect down-ballot races as well,. I’m all for him running. In fact, I wish we had 10 of him.

    (also, please D F T F T. Thanks 😀 )

  72. Mikey says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    (also, please D F T F T. Thanks 😀 )

    Work is slow today. I have to do something for entertainment.

  73. C. Clavin says:

    @James P:

    Cruz on the other hand is both a genius and a patriot

    The only thing Cruz has done is shut down the Government…which cost us at least $12B and further slowed down the recovery from the Bush Contraction.
    In the shut-down fiasco he put Republicans in a no-win situation where they had zero leverage and the only possible end result was them caving in.
    That didn’t show any kind of genius…political or otherwise. It was just plain fvcking stupid.
    Again…I don’t think that word…genius…means what you think it means.

    Have you found a link that proves:

    Obama was admitted to good schools on the basis of affirmative action and applying as a foreign exchange student (using his Indonesian citizenship).

    Yeah…I didn’t think so.

  74. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Mikey:

    Those Tea Toddlers live in a information bubble where matters of politics are concerned. Constantly hearing only viewpoints which agree with their own while filtering out anything which undermines their reality serves to convince them that they are a great, overwhelming and unheard majority. It’s self-delusion.

    That a lot of them are also fundamentalists explains that phenomenon. They’ve been engaging the fundamentalist clutch for most of their lives where religion is concerned when unpleasant facts contradict their neatly constructed reality. They’ve just applied the same tactic to politics now.

  75. grumpy realist says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Oh, but Daddy, he followed me home and he’s so CUUUTE!

    Blame it on the weather. We’re still getting the white stuff here in the Windy City.

  76. Mu says:

    Barack Hussein Obama is someone who has never accomplished anything in his entire pathetic life.

    So, graduating from Harvard and teaching at the University of Chicago followed by a successful state and national level political career culminating in a two-time presidency means you have accomplished nothing. And you want to replace him with a guy who never even graduated from college, and was a county and state level politician since age 24? What does that count as, negative accomplishments?

  77. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Mu:

    He has a severe case of ODS. Ignore him.

    It hasn’t dawned on people like him yet that there is no benefit at this point in excoriating Obama. He won. He won’t be running again. They’re still fighting an election that they lost three years ago, because their ODS will not allow them to recognize that fact and disengage / move on to the next fight.

  78. Tillman says:

    @grumpy realist: Ugh. Larison missed a golden opportunity there.

    What counts for him is demonstrating the intensity of his opposition and pandering to voters that care a lot more about affect than they do about effect.

    I don’t usually change another’s writing like that, but geez what a waste.

    @HarvardLaw92: More of a preview, I imagine, of how Republicans intend to attack the Democratic nominee. They’ve spent so long vilifying Obama that painting the next Dem as just a continuation will be all they have to do. Well, if they at all think through it, and someone on the right probably is.

    Like their ’12 convention, but maybe saner? I don’t know. Cruz entering the race is expected and ominous all the same.

  79. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Tillman:

    Like their ’12 convention, but maybe saner?

    I’m undecided on that one, but I’m leaning towards it being worse / more of a sideshow than 2012 was. In 2012, we had a lot of utter non-candidates.

    We may have that this time as well, depending on which clowns later decide to run, but what we absolutely will have are several very loud, very opinionated potentially viable candidates who will make this primary race an internecine conflict between the warring factions of the party, and in many ways that’s worse for the Republicans.

  80. Scott F. says:

    @Tillman:

    They’ve spent so long vilifying Obama that painting the next Dem as just a continuation will be all they have to do.

    And a year and a half from now, with the economy continuing to improve and either the ACA continuing to enroll in growing numbers or with people wistful for its return with the Republican chaos that is sure to follow a SCOTUS decision that guts it, vilifying a continuation of Obama will be even weaker tea than it is now.

  81. grumpy realist says:

    @Mu: Yes, it’s always amusing that this trope is trotted out by college drop-outs who are living off Mommy and Daddy and doing nothing but internet posting from said parents’ basement…..

    Of course, anything that is accomplished by people like President Obama just shows the evils of (pick one) a) Affirmative Action, b) the “plantation mentality” of black people, c) how Obama is a Muslim/Communist/Marxist/Lizard Person, d) How Obama isn’t a Real Amurrican, e) cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys….

    After all these years, you’d think they’d get some new arguments….

  82. Tillman says:

    @Scott F.: There was a study about how successful/disastrous presidents in one’s formative years (assuming you paid attention to politics anyway) shaped political preferences over a lifetime. Perhaps I’m just being pessimistic, but there are plenty of Obama ’08 voters who, low-information or not, aren’t exactly thrilled with him. These are people like me who graduated college into a financial meltdown, and the younger cohort’s student debt is ridiculous.

    After all, Coolidge and his administration in the ’20s probably deserve most of the credit for policies that led to the Great Depression, but it’s Hoover who got the hatred just for being the sitting president in office at the time. We’ve seen how conservatives have utterly forgotten Bush’s tenure during the bailout and placed blame on Obama. Sure, an examination of relevant dates and facts paints the more nuanced picture, but nuance isn’t exactly what American voters decide on.

    Not saying those disaffected will vote Republican, but I doubt they’ll show for Hillary Clinton. Again, probably just my pessimism.

  83. Tyrell says:

    I will be looking and researching information about each candidate. I will not use the mainstream news networks, channels, websites radio, and newspapers because they are all controlled. I will look at alternatives. I have developed a chart that I will use to compare each candidate’s position on issues that I am interested in, not the issues that the mainstream news thinks I am interested in.

  84. Scott F. says:

    @Tillman:

    I understand your pessimism and I’m not suggesting anything should be taken for granted by the Dems. But, as you allude to, elections in this country are between two candidates representing parties and their platforms and not between candidates and some ideal. To run successfully against the status quo, the status quo has to suck and you have to have a better alternative. The Republicans will have neither of these.

  85. James P says:

    @C. Clavin: He doesn’t believe in glo-bull warming because it isn’t real. It’s a Trojan Horse. The fact that Cruz calls glo-bull warming a hoax and a scam will only help him in a primary.

    None of the GOP candidates believe in glo-bull warming (well, maybe Jeb Bush) but only Cruz has the guts to admit this. I’m a Walker guy, but Walker disappoints me when he gives me a wishy washy answer about so-called climate change. Walker doesn’t believe in it, but the fact that he doesn’t have the guts to deny it (like Cruz does) disappoints me.

    The word I would use to describe Cruz’ position on AGW (as you call it) is courageous.

  86. James P says:

    @Mu: The point is to excoriate Obama to the point where Hillary’s mere association with him will be cast in a negative light.

    You guys did that to President Bush between 2005 and 2009. GWB wasn’t running for anything, but you made his name so toxic that any association with him was toxic.

    Hillary’s ties to BHO are deeper than McCain’s were to Bush. McCain never served in the Bush Cabinet. If BHO is sufficiently radioactive some of the stink will come off on Hillary.

    That’s the motivation for continuing to throw mud at a guy who can no longer run. If his approval numbers go into the 30s he’ll take his entire stinking party down with him. Even as a lame duck, he’s still the face of that party.

  87. James P says:

    @grumpy realist: I have yet to meet one single conservative who objects to Obama on the basis of race. Not one.

    I object to him on the basis that he is a Marxist who hates America who was born in “Manchuria”. I dislike him for the same reason the French Maquis disliked Henri Petain in the 1940s.

    Obama is lucky he is black. He gets sycophants like you to use race to explain away all of his failures. I don’t give a damn whether he is black, white, yellow, blue, or green — by any color the guy is a failure.

  88. David M says:

    The 2016 election will be interesting as it’s the first post-ACA presidential election. Obamacare has finally been implemented, so the two alternatives are now measurably different. Romney and McCain would certainly have been worse Obama on health care reform, but they would have just continued the status quo. Those two weren’t promising to destroy the successfully implemented ACA and take away real, tangible benefits. Ted Cruz is now campaigning to intentionally make my life worse in a very substantial way. I wonder when this will really start to matter to voters.

  89. C. Clavin says:

    @James P:

    The word I would use to describe Cruz’ position on AGW (as you call it) is courageous.

    I do not think that word…courageous…means what you think it means.
    It doesn’t take courage to pander to dupes like yourself who are happy to think what the fossil fuel industry tells you to think. At least this guy got paid. What’s your excuse for being ignorant?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

  90. James P says:

    @David M: Make your life worse? If you are relying on the government for healthcare you have a life of dependency – which means it already sucks.

    Don’t rely on the government. Rely on yourself and that is what will make your life better. If you are looking for the government to improve your lot your life will always suck.

  91. David M says:

    @James P:

    Either you do not have health insurance, or we’re both relying equally on the government for healthcare.

  92. Mikey says:

    @James P:

    If you are relying on the government for healthcare you have a life of dependency – which means it already sucks.

    I know a lot of people who are relying on the government for healthcare. They are called “military veterans and retirees.” Should I relay your message that their life sucks due to its “dependency?” Maybe they should turn in their Silver Stars and Air Force Crosses while they’re at it, the poor dependent schlubs…

  93. James P says:

    @David M: My employer gives me health insurance. I don’t work for the government. The government plays ZERO role in my healthcare………….thank God.

  94. David M says:

    @James P:

    I’m glad you agree we both depend equally on the government for health care, and it’s big of you to admit you’ve depended on the government for health insurance much longer than I have, while receiving a much greater financial contribution from the government.

    …oh noes, someone else is depending on the government.

  95. C. Clavin says:

    @James P:
    You really have no idea how the world works do you?
    If you are getting insurance from your employer then your insurance is heavily subsidized by the Government.
    You are one of the very moochers you detest.
    You’re one of those Tea Baggers that wants the Government out of Medicare, aren’t you?
    Hahahahaha….what a maroon!!!!

  96. C. Clavin says:

    @James P:

    Don’t rely on the government. Rely on yourself and that is what will make your life better.

    So I can only assume you are going to march into your HR Department and forfeit your heavily Government subsidized insurance. This afternoon, right?
    Hahahaha…my sides hurt from laughing at this clown.

  97. James P says:

    @C. Clavin: The government does not subsidize my insurance…….or anything else.

    The only interaction I ever have with government is in the form of payroll withholding.

    You have no clue what the policies of my employer are. My company does exactly zero dollars of business with the government. The only thing the government has ever done to my company is harass it non-stop because the people on the Board of Directors were well known Republican contributors.

    My healthcare is NOT being subsidized in any way, shape, manner, or form. You have no clue what you are talking about.

    I EARN what I have.

    People on Food Stamps, Medicaid, and those who receive the EITC don’t earn a damn thing. They’re parasites.

  98. James P says:

    @David M: [“it’s big of you to admit you’ve depended on the government for health insurance much longer than I have”]

    Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. I have said nothing of the sort and that statement is about 180 degrees from being accurate. I have never received any assistance of any kind from government. Since the day I was born until this moment my healthcare has come EXCLUSIVELY from the private sector without ANY subsidization of any kind.

    Feel free to speak for yourself, but don’t speak for me — I can do that for myself thank you very much.

    I have depended on government for NOTHING – NOTHING – NOTHING. I did not even attend public schools so the government has given me nothing – nothing – nothing.

  99. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Somebody explain to this clown how tax deductions qualify as subsidies. One would think that a “PhD” holder (*laugh*) in economics would understand that concept.

    Health care is the only significant form of employee compensation that can be delivered tax-free to the employee, while also being treated as a business expense by the employer.

  100. wr says:

    @Tyrell: “I have developed a chart that I will use to compare each candidate’s position on issues that I am interested in, not the issues that the mainstream news thinks I am interested in.”

    The price of movie theater concessions? Lines at theme parks? Stuff on TV that’s inappropriate for five years olds? Whether people go home as pig or pork?

  101. Mikey says:

    @James P: So you fly to work, using your arms?

    You generate your own power, too? Have your own private well? And of course your own private Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps to defend your entirely private little enclave in which the government is not at all involved?

    And as someone who spent a few years working for a sizable regional health care provider, I can tell you your assertion the government plays zero role in your healthcare is as wrong as basketball cleats. Government has major involvement in the provision and payment of healthcare, even with entirely private insurance (which, surprise surprise, ain’t as private as you think it is).

    Seriously, you have to be a Poe. Nobody is this ignorant, not even the staunchest of Libertarians believes what you are trying to sell here.

  102. C. Clavin says:

    @James P:

    I have never received any assistance of any kind from government. Since the day I was born until this moment my healthcare has come EXCLUSIVELY from the private sector without ANY subsidization of any kind.

    Hahahahahahahahaha….no wonder your opinions are so fvcked up….you have no idea how anything works.
    Do you have a mortgage? Your housing is subsidized too!!!!!
    Hahahahahah
    I bet your private school got Government funding too, so your education was Government subsidized.
    Hahahahahaha

  103. C. Clavin says:

    @James P:

    I have depended on government for NOTHING – NOTHING – NOTHING.

    You didn’t drive to work on roads today? How did you get there? Through a path in the woods?

  104. David M says:

    @James P:

    Your ignorance and/or dislike of the governmental assistance you receive does not matter. As a clear matter of fact, the government both subsidizes the cost of your health insurance premiums and requires the insurance company to accept you as part of a guaranteed-issue group policy.

    Myself, I’m only depending on Obamacare for guaranteed issue right now, not a subsidy. Whether or not anyone depends on the government for health care doesn’t really matter to me, as I would support single payer if it was an option. However, I seem to remember some ignoramus complaining about the moochers depending on government, maybe it was you they were talking about.

  105. Mikey says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    One would think that a “PhD” holder (*laugh*)

    I know some PhDs. My daughter’s a PhD. This guy ain’t no PhD.

    Of course, I’m pretty well convinced by now he’s not anything he claims to be, he’s just here trolling or whatever. Pretty much the exemplification of Poe’s Law…

  106. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @David M:

    Indeed. While we’re on the subject, the subsidy provided by government for employer supplied healthcare costs the government some $250 billion per year, which is about $110 billion per year LESS than the projected costs supplied by Fox & Co. for PPACA.

    If anything, he’s a member of a class which are bigger leeches (under his definition) than the folks he’s so up in arms about. Isn’t cognitive dissonance amusing?

  107. C. Clavin says:

    @James P:

    My healthcare is NOT being subsidized in any way, shape, manner, or form. You have no clue what you are talking about.

    Au contraire mon frere…you have no idea what you are talking about. You need to talk to your business office and ask them about the tax breaks they take for providing you with insurance. You little socialist, you.

  108. grumpy realist says:

    @HarvardLaw92: As the man says, “EVERYONE’S Ronnie Johnson on the internets…”

  109. An Interested Party says:

    That said, comparing Ted Cruz to a punk thug community organizer is ridiculous. Ted Cruz is a brilliant man. He is easily the most intelligent person in the Senate. Barack Hussein Obama is someone who has never accomplished anything in his entire pathetic life.

    I’m surprised that they give computer privileges to any of the patients at the asylum…

    He hates government yet he’s been a government employee much of his life.

    That seems to be the case for a lot of supposedly conservative Republican politicians…

  110. Tyrell says:

    @wr: That is good, very good. Some of my categories so far (and I am still working on it) are: interest rates, tax reform, monetary policy, foreign trade agreements, technology issues, infrastructure, the space race, the government/financial complex, food modifications, and catastrophic threats (such as the huge solar burst that hit the earth last week). Not on my chart will be candidate religious views, their favorite foods, favorite sports teams, and birth certificate details.

  111. James P says:

    @HarvardLaw92: OK, they probably do write off the cost of premiums they pay for employees as a business expense. I also write off the mortage interest that I pay, but that doesn’t mean I credit B Hussein Obama for the fact that I am a home owner.

    The people who built my gas guzzlling carbon-spewing SUV have health insurance. Their employer also wrote off those premiums as a business expense. Does that mean BHO bought my car? Not by any rational definition.

    I don’t consider that a subsidy and no rational person would think that is what I was referencing when I stated that the government plays no role in the healthcare of employees of private companies.

  112. James P says:

    @C. Clavin: Wow! You must be a gold medal gymnast. That is the degree of flexibility required to stretch to that degree.

    So if we had a flat tax then my argument would be 100% valid, correct?

    I’ve advocated a flat tax BEFORE Steve Forbes first ran for POTUS.

    Yes, my company writes off the premiums they pay for my policy as a business expense. That means I am dependent on government? Wow, that is a reach!

    If we had a flat tax (or the FAIR tax) I would still have health insurance because my company wants to attract and retain quality employees. THey don’t give it to me to be magnanimous or beneficent — they do it so I won’t seek employment elsewhere. This is the market at work — it has NOTHING to do with government.

    If government went away I would be just fine —- unlike the mooches, parasites, takers, grifters, and leaches who voted for Obama.

  113. James P says:

    @Mikey: The dissertation was about the effects of monetary policy on currency valuation. My advisor was Jesus Huerta de Soto. Try googling him.

  114. JohnMcC says:

    @James P: Mr P, you lost the debate. Go away.

  115. James P says:

    @JohnMcC: YOu sound like a Ron Paul nut-job. I have just won the debate. Saying so doesn’t make it true.

    Obama was born on Neptune – there, I have just won the debate. That’s how much sense you make.

  116. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @James P:

    That’s very interesting information, given that you claim to have received your PhD in London, but Huerta de Soto teaches in Spain. He has never been a faculty member at any institution in the UK.

    Would you care to clarify your statement come up with a new lie? 😀

  117. David M says:

    @James P:

    The government subsidizes the premiums for employer provided group health insurance policies, even for private firms. The government is also the reason the employer provided group health insurance policies are guaranteed-issue and cannot discriminate. Everyone who has employer provided health insurance is receiving assistance from the government, whether they want it or not. Only a ignorant fool would argue otherwise.

    The subsidy to borrow money for your primary residence is handled differently, and is completely voluntary. People actually must ask the government for it every year, it is not automatic.

  118. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @James P:

    Before we go any further down the road of exploring your somewhat lame charade, I should let you know that Dr. Huerto de Soto is a very approachable, congenial man.

    For example, he was kind enough to send me a quite concise list of the 23 doctoral recipients that he has advised. None of their dissertations address “the effects of monetary policy on currency valuation”.

    Do you have a statement you’d like to give here, or would you prefer to be confronted with this ethical quandary every time you open your mouth on this forum going forward?

  119. C. Clavin says:

    @James P:
    Of course they are subsidies. It’s not a stretch. Your insurance and your home ownership are subsidized by the Government. Moocher. Socialist.
    Hahahaha…

  120. C. Clavin says:

    @James P:

    The value of these tax benefits is substantial. The largest tax subsidy for private health insurance — the exclusion from income and payroll taxes of employer and employee contributions for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) – was estimated to cost approximately $250 billion in lost federal tax revenue in 2013.

    http://kff.org/private-insurance/issue-brief/tax-subsidies-for-private-health-insurance/

  121. Mikey says:

    @HarvardLaw92: I believe you’ve reached the point where what the kids today call a “mic drop” is appropriate.

  122. Barry says:

    @M. Bouffant: “Every first-term Senator who’s deluded himself into thinking he’s Presidential timber.”

    There’s an old saying about the Senate, that it consists of 100 people who look in the mirror each morning, and see the next President.

  123. Barry says:

    @Mu: “So how is he going to get around that Canadian birth issue? You’d think his own supporters would be the ones screaming loudest about it. After all, we haven’t head a president burn a British subject since Harrison.”

    Only the real True Believers will try it. They’ll be squished by the rest of the right, and by the ‘liberal media’, who will not give it more than a single dismissive minute. And they won’t use the excuse ‘people are talking about it, so it’s a real controversy’. Amazing how those liberal media types act so, ah – non-liberal.

  124. Barry says:

    @Jack: “Only qualification is Harvard Law School”

    And being able to beat somebody with vastly greater connections and money to win the nomination.

    Which, to be fair, would also apply to Ted, since he’ll have to beat Jeb and the Bush Crime Family. The word is that Jeb’s campaign is aiming at a half-billion $

  125. al-Ameda says:

    @James P:

    I also write off the mortage interest that I pay, but that doesn’t mean I credit B Hussein Obama for the fact that I am a home owner.

    No, however it does mean that you are a beneficiary of favorable tax treatment, as much as you hate to acknowledge that.

  126. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @al-Ameda:

    I have my doubts that we’ll (ever) be hearing from James P again …

  127. Surreal American says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    I have my doubts that we’ll (ever) be hearing from James P again …

    Only if he had any shame. Do you see any evidence that he possesses an ounce of shame?

  128. James P says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    I have my doubts that we’ll (ever) be hearing from James P again

    Hi Sparky!

    It looks like that prediction is about as accurate as your others.

  129. James P says:

    @C. Clavin: That benefits my employer – not me, at least not directly.

    If they couldn’t write off the premiums they pay for my insurance I”d still have health insurance – from them.

    So your argument that I benefit from a subsidy is wholly specious.

    I would support a flat tax in an instant. Would people who receive Food Stamps or EITC support a candidate who wants to abolish those programs?

    I think not because they’re moochers, deadbeats, and parasites, while I am not.

  130. Mikey says:

    @James P:

    I think not because they’re moochers, deadbeats, and parasites, while I am not.

    You most certainly are. You’ve claimed a very high level of education and a highly-respected title, neither of which you actually attained.

    You have, in effect, parasitically mooched the authority of people who actually did the work to get what you lied about having.

  131. David M says:

    @James P:

    You didn’t address the guaranteed issue benefit and you don’t actually understand how your premiums are subsidized.

  132. David M says:
  133. James P says:

    @HarvardLaw92: I have a google assignment for you Sparky.

    Google the term sabbatical. Do you know what that is?

    Are you actually this stupid? If you don’t know what a sabbatical is it is you who is lying about Harvard. You are 100% correct that he has never been faculty. Visiting profs on sabbatical are not classified as faculty. You didn’t even know that.

    Huerta has done several sabbaticals at LSE. My God, you don’t even know what a sabbatical is.

    Nice job “Exposing” me Sparky.

  134. James P says:

    @David M: They also probably write off paper clips as a business expense as well.

    the fact that they write off premiums paid for insurance policies for employees does not mean government subsidizes me.

    That argument is beyond weak — it’s pathetic really.

  135. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @James P:

    Ok, well then enjoy being confronted with your lies every time you open your mouth on this forum – as promised.

    Have a nice day 😀

  136. James P says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Do you have a statement you’d like to give here

    Yes I do have a statement, you are lying out of your ass,. and completely made that up. That’s my statement. I refer you to my earlier comment about educating yourself about what a sabbatical is.

    I called Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe and they told me that you are lying about having ever been in Cambridge.

    There, I’ve “discredited” you. Gee, that was easy.

  137. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @James P:

    Professors visiting on sabbaticals do not supervise PhD programs.

    Dr. Huerta de Soto has assured me that the list of 23 programs supplied to me by him represents every doctoral program that he has supervised. All of them, without exception. All of them were conducted in Spain.

    Doubling down on your lie will not work. You will either have to admit to it or have it follow you around here non-stop from this point forward.

    We’ll abide blowhards to an extent, but we do not condone liars.

  138. Tyrell says:

    @Scott F.: ACA: working fine for some people, but others are left out in the cold, falling through the cracks, victims of loopholes, glitches, conllicts between the government and private carriers, paper work errors, and id problems. A family of four with $29,000 income can not afford $475 a month for the AHA premium, person with cancer faces six hour daily trip for treatment (his local doctor is not taking AHA copatients),local doctors retiring because of paperwork requirements, and IRS penalties on those who can not afford to sign up !!
    There should be some sort of committee set up to work on solving the myriad of problems. Solution one would be to get the IRS out of it.

  139. David M says:

    @James P:

    the fact that they write off premiums paid for insurance policies for employees does not mean government subsidizes me.

    Anyone with even the most basic understanding of the issue knows the government subsidizes employer provided health insurance. So it again appears you aren’t informed enough to actually contribute to a discussion about an issue.

    We’ll add this to your list of topics you don’t really understand, so far they include the unemployment rate, vote totals in national presidential elections, health insurance…I’m sure I’m missing some.

  140. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @James P:

    Please feel free to peruse this list and identify which dissertation is yours

  141. David M says:

    @Tyrell:

    A family of four with $29,000 income can not afford $475 a month for the AHA premium

    A family of four with a $29,000 income is eligible for Medicaid and is not subject to the penalty, so the ACA is perfect for them.

  142. Mikey says:

    @James P: Don’t even try this bullshit, you duplicitous twit. YOU LIED. A man of maturity and integrity would admit it. Actually, such a man wouldn’t have done it to begin with, so I guess we know where that puts you.

    I don’t really care all that much if you want to bloviate on the internet, but you falsely claimed to have earned something that someone very dear to me actually worked very long and hard to achieve, and THAT pisses me right the hell off.

  143. Blue Galangal says:

    @David M: We already know his employer really is a wealthy Menard type (whose campus is somewhere in the wilds of Whozistan, unserved by municipal water, gas, or electricity, with no roads in or out and served only by a private jet flying in two to three times a day… Wait, no, I know, he works at Jurassic Park!). Maybe that employer eschews all health insurance and just pays his employees’ health care expenses out of pocket. In gold coins.

  144. Mikey says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Professors visiting on sabbaticals do not supervise PhD programs.

    Yeah, I told my Dr. Daughter about that one, she laughed out loud and said “the whole point of a sabbatical is to NOT advise.”

  145. Grumpy Realist says:

    @Blue Galangal: in Bitcoin!

  146. James P says:

    @Mikey: I have lied about NOTHING.

    THe only person who lied was the person who claimed to receive an email he did not.

    These attacks on me are motivated by jealousy. I take them for what they are worth. Your opprobrium should not be directed at me as I am not the one who has misrepresented ANYTHING.

    I worked very hard to achieve the degrees that I have as well and I do not take kindly to people lying about receiving FICTITIOUS emails which call this into question.

    Have you questioned to yourself whether or not typing in HarvardLaw is proof of having attended Harvard? I don’t consider that proof. I could easily create a handle saying Duke Law – that wouldn’t mean that I attended Duke.

    This really is a bizarre world when the victim of a smear campaign (me) is the one being asked to apologize instead of the person perpetrating the smear.

  147. James P says:

    @Mikey: Your daughter probably attended an inferior American school.

  148. Turgid Jacobian says:

    We can tell when you tell the truth, because that part is ALL CAPS, you know. That helps, and it is totally not something a troll would do.

  149. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @James P:

    Hi, James. As promised …

    You claim to have received a PhD in London directed by Jesus Huerta de Soto, addressing “the effects of monetary policy on currency valuation”.

    Dr. Huerta de Soto is not now, nor has he ever been, a faculty member of any educational institution in the UK.

    Further, I am in possession of a concise list, directly supplied to me by Dr. Huerta de Soto, of all 23 doctoral recipients whose programs were directed by him. None of these 23 dissertations address “the effects of monetary policy on currency valuation”.

    More to the point, none of the 23 people on this list are Americans.

    More pointedly, there is no record at LSE’s theses records portal, which catalogs every dissertation received by the school since 1905, of any submission referencing “Huerta” as anything other than an original author or an inline citation. No record of anyone by that name serving as either an advisor or as a committee member for any PhD program at LSE, and there are only 12 mentions of the name, so it’s not a long list to peruse …

    Would you care to make a statement concerning your abject lie?

  150. James P says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Statement:

    1) How is this germane to Ted Cruz’ candidacy? You are trolling/spamming another thread?

    2) Do I care to comment on an abject lie? Have you stopped beating your wife? That’s ostensibly what you are asking.

    The only person who lied is you. If people want to read it they can read it on the Indiana thread – I said what I have to say there.

  151. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @James P:

    You have been warned. This accusation will follow you around this forum every time you open your mouth until you either prove the existence of this PhD or admit that you lied.

    Those are your choices.

  152. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @James P:

    I do however agree that people should read how you have avoided this question on that thread. It’s very informative

  153. James P says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Admit that you lied about receiving the email I’m not going to let this drop.

  154. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @James P:

    Even assuming I were to do so, which I’m not, it doesn’t solve the basic problem:

    There is no record of your supposed dissertation at the school which you claim to have submitted it to.

    Why is there no record of your dissertation?

    I’m not going to let THAT drop. The floor is yours.

  155. Mikey says:

    @Obviously Lying Sack of Crap Troll: I’ve been corresponding with HL92 on these forums for quite some time. He’s done nothing to create doubt and I am quite certain he would, if necessary, be happy to provide proof of his education and credentials.

    You, on the other hand, have doubled down on the yelling, handwaving, and general bullshit, and failed to take even the simplest, most obvious actions available to prove your assertions are true.

    You’re trolling, and you suck at it. How lame is that?

  156. Mikey says:

    @Fool Who Can’t Back Up His Obviously False Claims: No, she went to a top research university on a full ride scholarship in a STEM field because unlike you she’s brilliantly intelligent and actually earned the high degree you’re lying about having.

  157. Andre Kenji says:

    @Mikey: I don´t know who exactly HarvardLaw92 is. But I know that his level of writing and argumentation is at least coherent with someone with his level of education. That´s not the case with the guy that´s bragging about his Ph. D in Economics.