You might want to rethink your approach
Oh my goodness.
Happened upon a conversation on Twitter.
Twitter Lady was pontificating on the shortcomings of one Ted Cruz:
Cruz is the right’s version of Obama. Wouldn’t it be grand if experience trumped rhetoric?
Yes, let’s do what the Dems did-elect someone who had zero experience prior to Presidency.
I pointed out what should be obvious by now: Obama’s failures have nothing to do with lacking executive experience.
They have everything to do with personality.
For me—although I’m probably by myself on this—I worry about successful, conservative governors becoming president and trying to solve the same problems nationally, even though they’re problems best (or only) solved on the state level.
Far from state government being a microcosm of the federal government, the federal government is simply huge. As in, really really big. And with a far more complex and permanent hidden government that no amount of “executive experience” is going to dislodge.
It’s going to take political courage and a bureaucratic meat cleaver.
But let’s leave all that aside.
Why would a conservative Republican defame Cruz this way to a differing group of Republican conservatives? Fascinatingly, on her Twitter timeline this lady referred —approvingly (and judgmentally)—to Reagan’s 11th Commandment.
He has NO leadership experience other than being Sen. Let him get some before he runs.
Twitter Lady is confusing “executive” with “leadership” experience. They should be related (and sometimes are), but they’re not the same thing.
His resume is weak. Other than being elected Sen, he has not other accomplishments.
I challenged this by mentioning his background in Supreme Court law.
Actually he was 1 of a grp of lawyers who worked for Greg Abbott in TX.
Actually he was the Solicitor General of Texas:
Office of Solicitor General
As the chief appellate lawyer for the State of Texas, the Solicitor General supervises all appellate litigation on behalf of the Office of the Attorney General. The Office of Solicitor General (OSG) approves all civil and criminal appeals in state and federal courts involving the state, its agencies and its officials. OSG also directly handles those appeals determined to be most significant to Texas and to the development of federal and state jurisprudence and appears on occasion in federal and state trial courts on matters implicating the state’s most critical interests. In addition, OSG regularly authors amicus curiae briefs for submission to the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts across the nation.
The Solicitor General is the state’s chief litigator in the U.S. Supreme Court and the Texas Supreme Court. In addition, as a member of the Attorney General’s executive leadership team, the Solicitor General serves as a top legal advisor to the Attorney General and advises other agency lawyers and state officials on complex constitutional and other legal matters.
Established in January 1999, the Texas OSG is expressly modeled after the Office of the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice. The federal OSG was created through the Statutory Authorization Act of June 22, 1870, which provides that “[t]here shall be in the Department of Justice an officer learned in the law, to assist the Attorney General in the performance of his duties, to be called the Solicitor General.”
The Texas OSG appears regularly before the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court of Texas, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the intermediate state courts of appeals. Since 1999, OSG attorneys have presented 15 oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court, 74 in the Texas Supreme Court, and hundreds in other federal and state appellate and trial courts, including arguments before every intermediate court of appeals in Texas as well as three en banc arguments before the Fifth Circuit. OSG has won eight Best Brief Awards from the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) for briefs filed in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Solicitor General of Texas is supported by two deputies, over a dozen assistant solicitors general and a highly dedicated support staff.
Nine of those 15 oral arguments before the Supreme Court were argued by Ted Cruz.
According to Wikipedia, prior to being Solicitor General, Cruz served as the director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission (1999-2003) and as Associate Deputy Attorney General at the United States Department of Justice.
All of these positions, by the way, are executive positions, albeit over miniscule teams when compared with state or federal governments.
But they’re not nothing.
This person is a drone
I suspected Twitter Lady was a liberal Texan posing as a conservative. First of all, she did that classic concern-trolling thing Limbaugh ascribes to Seminar Callers:
Don’t get me wrong I voted for Cruz, but he has yet to show any legislative accomplishments. He needs more experience.
And then she spent a few minutes furiously, but somehow calmly, spinning everything absolutely, without a doubt, totally against Cruz. And she also sounded like Molly Ivins. I swear.
But, judging by her LinkedIn profile and the bulk of her tweets, she’s actually a genuinely conservative, establishment-loving, Cruz hater.
Don’t know why.
Either way, she’s a drone, unable to make a coherent, fair, and congruent case toward another candidate, rather than merely being against Cruz.
Why would she want to do that?
Could it be that the folks upset with Ted Cruz’s political ineptitude are themselves politically inept?
Or just projecting?
Twitter Lady didn’t invent this inane game. She’s just incredibly devoted to the Moderate Mission Statement:
Don’t try to change things until we’re in power.
She’s not alone in her Cruz hatred.
Cruz Derangement Syndrome
Frankly, this all baffles me.
It’s as if Cruz is some high-IQ troll baiting the establishment into making total idiots of themselves with over-the-top characterizations of the insurgent wing of the conservative movement.
Why would they do that?
After all, these are the seasoned political professionals who know how to gain and use political power to advance the conservative cause.
Or at least that’s what they keep telling us.
Meanwhile, they’re driving that wooden stake deeper and deeper into the heart of establishment Republicanism.