Cruz Wins! Cruz Wins!! CRUUUUUUUUUUUUZ WINS!!!

Today was the day for the Texas run-off between TEA Party favorite Ted Cruz and Establishment-backed David Dewhurst. I’ve been covering it over on Truth Before Dishonor. David Dewhurst had run one of the nastiest, lie-filled, “kill the enemy” campaign I’ve seen (clearly along the same lines as Obama’s likewise lie-filled campaign), and it blew up in his face.

As of right now, with 95 percent of the precincts reporting in, Ted Cruz leads David Dewhurst 57-43, and a 143,000 vote lead.

And Barack Obama’s claim that he sees Texas becoming a swing state in the near future? The Democrats had their own little run-off, selecting their sacrificial lamb who will be led to the slaughter. Paul Sadler, winning the honors with 63 percent of the Democrat vote (94 percent reporting), has barely 147,000 votes. That’s what? 15 percent of the total Republican votes?

Meet your next US Senator from the Great State of Texas! Ted Cruz!

15 Comments

  1. It appears the Ted Cruz ran an effective campaign, effective in further radicalizing our politics, not good news for those, like myself, who believe that the prospects for our country are best when we work together for solutions to our many, many problems.

  2. Perhaps you might consider that it’s moderation and compromise that got us into this mess: we compromised on Republican tax cuts and Democratic spending by doing both . . . and we have trillion dollar deficits and a national debt approaching $16 trillion.

  3. “Moderation and compromise” is also what can get us out of this mess. The problem is, one side refuses this approach, instead is going for a full usurpation of power, by any means necessary, using money and voter suppression, so they can dictate what is in the best interests of our 1%, who will then continue dispensing a few left over crumbs.

    If you do not see this happening right in front of your own eyes, Mr Editor, then you are a victim of your own self-inflicted ideological haze!

  4. The problem is, when ingrained dogmatic radicals like Perry keep revising history and lying about reality — a victim of his own ideological haze — nothing will ever get accomplished.

  5. You’re still fixated on that 1% aren’t ya Wagonwheel? So let me ask you this. If you took the 1% and executed them today what do you think would happen? The current 2% would then become the new 1%. Then what, execute them too? Then the current 3% become the new 1%. And so on and so on. There will always be, in any society, a 1% at the top and a 1% at the bottom. If you haven’t come to terms with that in your 77 years on this earth then you are intellectually no better off than a stary eyed 18 year old. You need to stop thinking like an envious child, stamping his feet and screaming “that’s not fair” and start thinking like an actual adult.

    You do realize Wagonwheel that if a person makes 20 million in a year and your policies tax away 99% of those earnings that is a tax on his income not his wealth. And he’ll just find ways not to be taxed, either by moving his profit center out of the country, or by relaxing and enjoying his 100 million in accumulated wealth. Either way he creates no new businesses, no new jobs and no new capital for others to borrow or invest Here. Or do you and your comrads plan on confiscating his wealth as well as his income? Remember, you can only do that once (as the Soviets discovered) then it’s all down hill from there.

    You don’t understand that a tax on income is a tax on one’s ability to accumulate and create wealth in the future. It hinders the lower class from moving up, the middle class from moving up and the upper class from expanding. Seems to me your policies would be a road block for the lower class to move to the middle class, the middle class to attain real wealth and encourage the wealthy to get out as fast as they can.

    I really don’t understand what you seek to achieve. Are you looking for absolute equality of income? Of accumulated wealth? Of ability to earn? Or are you on some sort of marxist campaign to punish anyone who makes money just because….? I don’t understand what you think is “fair”, because if you taxed away all the wealth of the top 20% the 21% would then become the 1%. You guys really haven’t given much thought to this social justice thing and it’s results, have you? I think you are a victim of your own self-induced ideological haze.

  6. “I really don’t understand what you seek to achieve. Are you looking for absolute equality of income? Of accumulated wealth? Of ability to earn? Or are you on some sort of marxist campaign to punish anyone who makes money just because….? I don’t understand what you think is “fair”, because if you taxed away all the wealth of the top 20% the 21% would then become the 1%. You guys really haven’t given much thought to this social justice thing and it’s results, have you? I think you are a victim of your own self-induced ideological haze.”

    I’ll take something like the Clinton years, when we had a robust middle class and a balanced budget at the end.

    And I do subscribe to demand side economics, because of it’s proven record of success, unlike the supply side approach which has never worked, which your side wants to try again.

    I also support a simpler but more progressive tax structure, which was so successful in our economic expansion days of the ’50′s, ’60′s, ’70′s during which time I was fortunate enough to have wonderful job, education, and salary opportunities, enabling my wife and me to raise a family and pursue interests such as volunteering and traveling activities.

    I wish to restore the good times which I experienced during my younger years, to our younger citizens of today who are willing to work hard to get ahead. Unfortunately, the political power and greediness of today’s 1% are a different breed than they were in my day.

    A good start would be to find and elect far-sighted and generous leaders from either party, so we can start turning this ship of state heading toward more calm and productive waters.

    This is my hope for the future.

  7. for those, like myself, who believe that the prospects for our country are best when we work together for solutions to our many, many problems.

    Except, as a left wing extremist, you don’t believe in “Working together”. Your version of compromise is Republicans caving to Democrats.

  8. A good start would be to find and elect far-sighted and generous leaders from either party, so we can start turning this ship of state heading toward more calm and productive waters.

    The first thing is to get rid of Obama, the most divisive president we’ve had ever.

  9. WW wrote:

    I’ll take something like the Clinton years, when we had a robust middle class and a balanced budget at the end.

    Oh, you mean when total federal spending was 18.2% of GDP? That, you see, is the problem: under Barack Hussein Obama it has skyrocketed to over 24% of GDP, and the President means to keep it well above 22% for as far into the future as he can project. You, of course, absolutely support him in that.

  10. “A good start would be to find and elect far-sighted and generous leaders from either party…”

    Did you actually say “generous”? Generous has nothing to do with government. And exactly what would this wonderful, generous leader be generous at and with?

  11. “I’ll take something like the Clinton years, when we had a robust middle class and a balanced budget at the end.”

    Finally! You then admit “the Clinton years” were a success thanks to the great leadership displayed by Clinton! Monica and his impeachment notwithstanding, it was a pretty nice party. Now all you need to do is think really hard and try and remember who was in charge of the economy and the purse strings during those great times when we had a “robust middle class and a balanced budget at the end“. Do you recall?

  12. Well, the good citizens of the Lone Star State will now have a chance to vote, a real choice between an honest, conservative, and a liberal. Wagonwheel is apoplectic.

  13. This is my article. That makes it my rules. That means Perry never had permission to comment in this thread.

    And Perry threw out some hate-filled, lie-filled radical Leftist rhetoric in a thread where he didn’t even have permission to comment.

    All further comments from Perry in this thread will be henceforth deleted. And all with the authority to delete or edit have my permission to carry on with full deletions of Perry’s comments in this thread.

    My article.
    My thread.
    My rules.
    Don’t like it?
    Tough. Go cry somewhere else.

Comments are closed.