Cruz Nuz

[Peter]

From The Objective Standard. Ted Cruz for President. Craig Biddle April 2, 2016 Ayn Rand & Objectivism, Individual Rights & Law. Appreciation for Ayn Rand’s Ideas.

Cruz is a fan of Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, and his appreciation for Rand’s work is no small matter. Of course, Cruz is not an Objectivist and doesn’t pretend to be. But he sees great value in Ayn Rand’s ideas. He sees Rand’s ideas as both principled and practical. This is why he brings them up in regard to Obamacare and other real-world problems of the day. And it is why he has mentioned Rand’s work not once but twice on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

In September 2013, Senator Cruz read excerpts from Atlas Shrugged during a speech in which he called for defunding Obamacare on the grounds that the law is contrary to liberty, morality, and the American way of life. His reading from Atlas began as follows:

We’re a nation that was founded on liberty. Always defend liberty. You know you really can’t go wrong with that as a motto. In the interest of that, I’d like to share a few excerpts from one of my favorite books, Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand.

Now let me encourage any of you who have not read Atlas Shrugged to go tomorrow, buy Atlas Shrugged, and read it. What’s interesting is in the last three years my understanding is that sales of Atlas Shrugged have exploded, because we are living in the days [anticipated by] Ayn Rand . . .

Among the excerpts Cruz then proceeded to read is the section on productivity from Galt’s speech, including this:

Productiveness is your acceptance of morality, your recognition of the fact that you choose to live—that productive work is the process by which man’s consciousness controls his existence, a constant process of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter to fit one’s purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one’s values—that all work is creative work if done by a thinking mind, and no work is creative if done by a blank who repeats in uncritical stupor a routine he has learned from others—that your work is yours to choose, and the choice is as wide as your mind, that nothing more is possible to you and nothing less is human—that to cheat your way into a job bigger than your mind can handle is to become a fear-corroded ape on borrowed motions and borrowed time, and to settle down into a job that requires less than your mind’s full capacity is to cut your motor and sentence yourself to another kind of motion: decay—that your work is the process of achieving your values, and to lose your ambition for values is to lose your ambition to live—that your body is a machine, but your mind is its driver, and you must drive as far as your mind will take you, with achievement as the goal of your road—that the man who has no purpose is a machine that coasts downhill at the mercy of any boulder to crash in the first chance ditch, that the man who stifles his mind is a stalled machine slowly going to rust, that the man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap, and the man who makes another man his goal is a hitchhiker no driver should ever pick up—that your work is the purpose of your life, and you must speed past any killer who assumes the right to stop you, that any value you might find outside your work, any other loyalty or love, can be only travelers you choose to share your journey and must be travelers going on their own power in the same direction.

Cruz also read the passage in which Dagny Taggart poses the question, “What is morality?”—and receives the answer, “Judgment to distinguish right and wrong, vision to see the truth, courage to act upon it, dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by the good at any price.” After pausing to let that sink in, Cruz said:

That’s counsel that the United States Senate should listen to. That’s counsel that I would encourage every Democratic senator who feels the urge of party loyalty to [listen to] . . . I would encourage my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle: As difficult as it is to cross one’s Party leaders, I say, with perhaps a little familiarity of the consequences of so doing, that it’s survivable—and that ultimately it is liberating.

[Peter]

Why vote for anyone else when we have Ted Cruz? Of course he has flaws but he is ten times more consistent with Objectivist Politics than anyone who has ever run, except perhaps for Rand Paul. While I see some of John Galt in Ted Cruz he does not fit any Randian character I can think of but I can say he is a fan of Rand.

Peter  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

24 minutes ago, Peter said:

Why vote for anyone else when we have Ted Cruz? Of course he has flaws but he is ten times more consistent with Objectivist Politics than anyone who has ever run, except perhaps for Rand Paul.

Peter,

When you say "he IS," there is a potential error here. Because it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Ted Cruz SAYS he is more consistent with Objectivist Politics than anyone else and he throws a bone to Objectivists by reading passages of Atlas Shrugged out loud.

What he DOES in the Senate and backstage is a crapload different... Notice that anything he DOES that is antithetical to Objectivist Politics gets done (crony trade agreements anyone?). Anything he DOES to support Objectivist Politics dies (Don Quixote monologues anyone?).

I realize that is not an important distinction to SAYS people, but it is critical to DOES people.

If you're a SAYS kind of guy, Cruz is near perfect. (Note, most ortho-Objectivists are talkers, not doers.) 

If you're a DOES kind of guy, you will seek out productive doers like Trump.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

30 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ted Cruz SAYS he is more consistent with Objectivist Politics than anyone else and he throws a bone to Objectivists by reading passages of Atlas Shrugged out loud.

What he DOES in the Senate and backstage is a crapload different... Notice that anything he DOES that is antithetical to Objectivist Politics gets done (crony trade agreements anyone?). Anything he DOES to support Objectivist Politics dies (Don Quixote monologues anyone?).

I realize that is not an important distinction to SAYS people, but it is critical to DOES people.

If you're a SAYS kind of guy, Cruz is near perfect. (Note, most ortho-Objectivists are talkers, not doers.) 

If you're a DOES kind of guy, you will seek out productive doers like Trump.

 

Cruz campaigned in Iowa taking a stand against ethanol subsidies, which are supported by the Establishment GOP and crony capitalists there. Yet, he came out the winner. Was taking that politically risky stand SAYING or DOING? (Fans of the fallacy of the false alternative will recognize that it was both SAYING -AND~ DOING.)

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

20 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

Was taking that politically risky stand SAYING or DOING?

Roger,

SAYING.

I didn't see Cruz DO anything about ethanol except talk.

Don't tell me you think just because a politician SAYS one thing during an election, he will DO it. If so, I have a bridge... (you know the rest...  ).

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

btw - Call me fallacy stupid.

I like people who talk about producing to actually produce.

 

Speaking of Iowa, here's what I saw Ted Cruz DO.

He had his staff tell voters Ben Carson was no longer running right at the caucuses and right at voting time.

Of course, he SAYS that's not what he did, but he did it. Seven Mountains or not.

I wonder how he would govern, I wonder, I wonder...

 

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

SAYING.

I didn't see Cruz DO anything about ethanol except talk.

Don't tell me you think just because a politician SAYS one thing during an election, he will DO it. If so, I have a bridge... (you know the rest...  ).

 

He has consistently (I'm not sure of any lapses) VOTED against subsidies in Congress - is that SAYING or DOING? To me, it's both. It's not just SAYING you're against them, it's DOING something against them, namely, voting against them.

Similarly, in the Iowa caucus campaign, he remained consistent with what he DID in Congress, by continuing to oppose subsidies - when he could have gotten more votes by changing his position, as some others did.

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Speaking of Iowa, here's what I saw Ted Cruz DO.

He had his staff tell voters Ben Carson was no longer running right at the caucuses and right at voting time.

Of course, he SAYS that's not what he did, but he did it. Seven Mountains or not.

 

So, maintaining consistency in SPEECH and ACTION about subsidies is NOT doing. But "having your staff" SAY something is DOING?

Sounds to me like you're mangling and reversing the distinction between Cruz's DOING and SAYING when it exists in a rather unclear situation, and ignoring his overall DOING ~AND~ SAYING consistently about subsidies, when the evidence is very clear-cut and first-person.

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I wonder how he would govern, I wonder, I wonder...

That's really funny, coming from a supporter of the candidate who has a different position on issues each day of the week - and sometimes more than one position on a given day, or even in a single hour. 

REB

[Backlighting]

3 hours ago, Peter said:

Why vote for anyone else when we have Ted Cruz? Of course he has flaws but he is ten times more consistent with Objectivist Politics than anyone who has ever run, except perhaps for Rand Paul. While I see some of John Galt in Ted Cruz he does not fit any Randian character I can think of but I can say he is a fan of Rand.

Peter  

I hooked my cart to his train when I first him speak of AS on the Senate floor. Of course I don't like his obsession with religion and god, but hey I'd rather see him, the preacher, than Donald the punish-er on the Republican ticket. John Galt is not running...not that he ever would were he alive.  I also believe he has a much better chance of beating anyone the democraps put up. -J

[Robert Campbell]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Roger,

SAYING.

I didn't see Cruz DO anything about ethanol except talk.

Don't tell me you think just because a politician SAYS one thing during an election, he will DO it. If so, I have a bridge... (you know the rest...  ).

Michael

Michael,

Are you in favor of ethanol mandates, or opposed to them?

Maybe, since Ted Cruz has said he's against them, and he is a cunningly disguised fount of evil scarcely outdone by Sauron before the fall of Numenor, you've decided they must be a great thing after all.

However that may be, your guy, Donald Trump, has said that he is in favor of them.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/266339-trump-calls-for-higher-ethanol-mandate

Now, following the Bizarro logic that you've told us everyone must apply to anything that Donald Trump says, are we supposed to conclude that Trump will, upon acceding to power, move immediately to end all ethanol mandates?

Or what, exactly?

In opposing ethanol mandates while campaigning in Iowa, Cruz did something Mitt Romney didn't do.  Something Newt Gingrich didn't do.  Something hardly any Republican running for President had done.

He drew explicit condemnation from the multi-term Republican governor, Terry Branstad, who didn't endorse anyone in the caucuses—but did specifically advise everyone to vote against Cruz.

Before he ran out of money, a pissed-off Iowa ethanol lobbyist then funded ads that ran in other states.  These attacked Cruz on completely unrelated issues, like saying nice things about "the TRAITOR Edward Snowden!"  Living in South Carolina, I got a snootful of these before the Republican primary.

Robert

 

[Robert Campbell]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

btw - Call me fallacy stupid.

I like people who talk about producing to actually produce.

 

Speaking of Iowa, here's what I saw Ted Cruz DO.

He had his staff tell voters Ben Carson was no longer running right at the caucuses and right at voting time.

Of course, he SAYS that's not what he did, but he did it. Seven Mountains or not.

I wonder how he would govern, I wonder, I wonder...

 

Michael

Michael,

Where is your evidence that Ted Cruz told his staffers to say this?

We know that some of them did, on the strength of a misleading story that ran on CNN.

By the way, if Donald Trump had won the Iowa caucuses, would we have heard about any of this stuff even 48 hours after the caucuses finished?

Could it be that The Donald felt entitled to win those caucuses?

Robert

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a guy who has a different opinion of Cruz.

Granted, he works for Trump.  

But he used to work for Jeff Sessions and clashed with Cruz on immigration.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Now, following the Bizarro logic that you've told us everyone must apply to anything that Donald Trump says

Robert,

Are you kidding me?

All I get is Bizarro logic from you guys on why a Seven Mountains Dominionist Christian anointed by God to be king is a Randian hero.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

3 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

Are you kidding me?

All I get is Bizarro logic from you guys on why a Seven Mountains Dominionist Christian anointed by God to be king is a Randian hero.

Michael

Michael,

You have said we must listen to everything that Donald Trump says while campaigning, then ignore what anyone not equipped with a magic decoder ring would see as its plain meaning, because what he says is of no consequence compared to what he--currently does? has done? will do?

Do you have a position of your own on ethanol mandates, or will you wait for whatever it is that Trump decides, should he be elected, then proclaim it infinitely wise and good?

I don't count any of those presently running for President as Randian heroes.  Never was tempted to.

Least of all am I inclined to equate Donald Trump with Howard Roark.

Would you really be so ready to despise Ted Cruz, make him out to be a stealth wannabe theocrat, and seek to run him out of politics entirely, if he were not running in opposition to Donald Trump?

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

22 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Would you really be so ready to despise Ted Cruz, make him out to be a stealth wannabe theocrat, and seek to run him out of politics entirely, if he were not running in opposition to Donald Trump?

Robert,

Of course not.

I want him to continue in the Senate to support President Trump.

I also want him to lose his bid for the presidency. Is that clear, or do I need to explain why this does not mean hatred, and wanting to decapitate Cruze after drawing and quartering him? And this after crucifying him on a real cross?

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

27 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's a guy who has a different opinion of Cruz.

Granted, he works for Trump.  

But he used to work for Jeff Sessions and clashed with Cruz on immigration.

Michael

Michael,

Never heard Mr. Miller speak

From this sample, he comes across as a deeply dishonest wannabe demagogue, who will probably not be very successful in that line of work because he hasn't one ounce of his current boss's skill or pizazz.

On how much of his alleged inside information, never previously reported by any media outlet, does his former employer, Senator Sessions, actually back him?

What he is trying to insinuate is that Ted Cruz = Paul Ryan = Barack Obama = the Bush Family = Washington, DC = the Communist Party of China = ....

He cannot afford to have in his audience anyone inclined to make distinctions.

Did Ted Cruz vote for or against the Gang of Eight bill?

Mr. Miller knows the answer.  He must be hoping that no one else cares to know it.

Robert

PS. As I'm sure has been pointed out on this site by others, "currency manipulation" or "currency cheating" is a not very nice way of describing what central banks do.  The United States also has a central bank.

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

From this sample, he comes across as a deeply dishonest wannabe demagogue, who will probably not be very successful in that line of work because he hasn't one ounce of his current boss's skill or pizazz.

Robert,

Well that's because he doesn't support Cruz, right?

You don't like his conclusions, but don't seem to mind Cruz's lawyerly conclusions. For instance, he claimed (for a while) that Trump supported Obamacare. And that Trump funded the Gang of 8. (Trump gave to lots of politicians, including some in the Gang of 8 and some opponents of them--for Cruz this constituted Trump funding the Gang of 8 and ideologically advocating all they stood for, especially amnesty for illegal immigrants.)

Are these statements by a "deeply dishonest wannabe demagogue" or merely politics as usual?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

14 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

PS. As I'm sure has been pointed out on this site by others, "currency manipulation" or "currency cheating" is a not very nice way of describing what central banks do.  The United States also has a central bank.

Robert,

I lived for three decades in a country that did nothing but currency manipulation. When I see people discuss this topic, most of them are imagining something it isn't. In foreign trade, it's a major corruption scheme. When an agreement is honored with manipulated currency, you receive, say, 30 cents on the dollar when you have to be paid, but have to pay 3 dollars for every dollar you are obligated to pay. Why? Because of the currency the contract is in.

The cronies who don't have to worry about the losses are the ones who pay the politicians for all kinds of perks. Often there are loss deals for show, while the oceans-of-greed party goes on backstage.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

40 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Do you have a position of your own on ethanol mandates, or will you wait for whatever it is that Trump decides, should he be elected, then proclaim it infinitely wise and good?

Robert,

I prefer to wait for whatever Trump decides after he's elected and takes office, then proclaim it infinitely wise and good.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

17 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

Of course not.

I want him to continue in the Senate to support President Trump.

I also want him to lose his bid for the presidency. Is that clear, or do I need to explain why this does not mean hatred, and wanting to decapitate Cruze after drawing and quartering him? And this after crucifying him on a real cross?

Michael

Michael,

If the stomping works half as well as you want it to, Ted Cruz won't be in the Senate. If he is really a stealth theocrat, he shouldn't be in the Senate anyway.  He shouldn't be in politics at any level.  If he really cheated on his wife with 8 different women (or if enough people find it useful to believe something along those lines, even if the story has no foundation in fact), he'll likely not be running for reelection in 2018.

Besides, if somehow he survives the stomping and re-stomping politically, what makes you think that for the rest of his life he will want to do one solitary thing for Donald Trump?

Ben Carson and Chris Christie have, so far, been willing to serve Donald Trump.  How many of the others whom he has stomped and re-stomped will be inclined to do so?

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

Where is your evidence that Ted Cruz told his staffers to say this?

Robert,

I would be satisfied if Ted Cruz swore in the name of Jesus--which is his top moral compass--that he had no knowledge and/or sanction of the dirty trick his staff played on Ben Carson. And I mean this said clearly, not parsed in lawyerese like Cruz does all the time.

Cruz will swear a lot in the name of Jesus, but something tells me he will not swear to that one.

It's pretty hard to have court-like evidence of a successful crime. The thief doesn't do it to get caught. 

The good thing is I don't need to have such evidence. I have a vote and a voice. And I'm using both.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Besides, if somehow he survives the stomping and re-stomping politically, what makes you think that for the rest of his life he will want to do one solitary thing for Donald Trump?

Robert,

That's easy. It's because he's a politician.

You think he's full of integrity. I used to. But since he's on board with dirty tricks and lying, I see no problem whatsoever with him making nice with President Trump.

Let's refer back to this post when it happens or not, shall we?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

56 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

You have said we must listen to everything that Donald Trump says while campaigning, then ignore what anyone not equipped with a magic decoder ring would see as its plain meaning, because what he says is of no consequence compared to what he--currently does? has done? will do?

Robert,

Man, you ask a lot of questions.

Whew!

I never said "we must listen to everything that Donald Trump says while campaigning." Do you have a link? You won't because I never said it.

I have constantly said when there is a difference between what a man says and what he does, I go with what he does as the better indication of his intentions and what he will do in the future. You don't need a decoder ring for that. Just ordinary human eyes and a bit of common sense.

Don't forget, I'm the logically challenged one who adheres to the "do vs. say" fallacy. (I never heard of this as a logical fallacy until this thread, but whatever...  )

Michael 

[Robert Campbell]

19 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

That's easy. It's because he's a politician.

You think he's full of integrity. I used to. But since he's on board with dirty tricks and lying, I see no problem whatsoever with him making nice with President Trump.

Let's refer back to this post when it happens or not, shall we?

Michael

Michael,

Let's indeed refer back.

You seem confident that everyone Trump has stomped will become his humble servant.

Robert

[Robert Campbell]

18 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

Man, you ask a lot of questions.

Whew!

I never said "we must listen to everything that Donald Trump says while campaigning." Do you have a link? You won't because I never said it.

I have constantly said when there is a difference between what a man says and what he does, I go with what he does as the better indication of his intentions and what he will do in the future. You don't need a decoder ring for that. Just ordinary human eyes and a bit of common sense.

Don't forget, I'm the logically challenged one who adheres to the "do vs. say" fallacy. (I never heard of this as a logical fallacy until this thread, but whatever...  )

Michael 

Michael,

Do you mean, rather, that we really shouldn't listen to everything Donald Trump says while campaigning?

It would be much easier to support him, if one tuned out most of what he was actually saying....

Robert

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 minute ago, Robert Campbell said:

Do you mean, rather, that we really shouldn't listen to everything Donald Trump says while campaigning?

Robert,

Of course. 

People are only going to hear what they want to, anyway. For instance, I know someone who hears Trump say over and over and over and over and over he's going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something much better. And this person continued for the longest time saying Trump supported Obamacare. (That was Ted Cruz.)

That is one person who definitely should not listen to everything Trump says. He can't even get the easy stuff right.

Michael