The Ted Cruz Train Wreck

[Kraken]

If this is accurate, then the "natural-born citizen" may be an issue after all:

The Constitution provides that “No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The concept of “natural born” comes from common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept’s definition. On this subject, common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are “such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,” while aliens are “such as are born out of it.”

I'm skeptical, though, since I would think this analysis of the term would have been brought up before, and this is the first I'm hearing of it.

[url=http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016 ... story.html]

People are entitled to their own opinions about what the definition ought to be. But the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the Supreme Court is an “originalist,” one who claims to be bound by the narrowly historical meaning of the Constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption. To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.

A "living constitutionalist" who believes that the meaning of the document evolves over time would give Cruz a pass.

Cruz’s public pronouncements about the kinds of justices he would appoint suggest that his litmus test would filter out any jurist who views the Constitution as flexible enough to reflect accumulated experience and changed perspectives. Unless, it seems, that kind of jurist would rule in a way Cruz favors on one or another issue crucial to him — like his eligibility to serve as president. Because a rigid “originalism” tends not to favor women’s rights or gay rights, I wouldn’t count on a Cruz appointee to be open-minded on such matters.

[MonkeyFinger]

A NYT opinion piece on Ted: The Brutalism of Ted Cruz and how that plays to evangelical voters.

[tgb]

It would only be better if Trump (who was one of the driving forces in the Obama birther crap) was also dragged into it as a victim.

Even if Bill Maher is right, I don't think there's anything in the constitution that excludes the spawn of an orange-haired orangutan from serving as POTUS.

[Smoove_B]

Ted Cruz on NY:

When GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz said his rival Donald Trump represents “New York values” it was supposed to be an insult, even though he has stubbornly refused to admit why. When asked by Fox News host and native New Yorker Megyn Kelly what he meant by the remark on Tuesday, he laughed and said, “the rest of the country knows exactly what New York values are. I got to say, they’re not Iowa values and they’re not New Hampshire values.”

But what does he mean?

...Cruz’s gambit is just the latest example from the GOP playbook of the vilification of the perceived “blue” parts of the country. Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin spoke in similarly cryptic terms in 2008 when she referred to small towns as the “real America,” overlooking the fact that the nation was founded in an East Coast city. When then-Sen. Barack Obama sought the presidency that year, Republicans warned of shadowy “Chicago-style politics” coming to the White House and used the descriptor “Chicago community organizer” almost like an epithet. When then-Sen. John Kerry was the Democratic standard bearer, he was routinely referred to as a “Massachusetts liberal” and derisively as “the senator from Massachusetts” as if by association the birthplace of Paul Revere connoted some kind of corrosive foreign threat.

[Holman]

FWIW, hinterland candidates have been dissing metropolitan candidates since at least Andrew Jackson.

[Smoove_B]

Of that I have no doubt, but what exactly does he mean? Is he blowing some type of dog-whistle? From the article:

Maybe Cruz is alluding to the Big Apple’s reputation for supposedly loose morals, but teen pregnancy is down almost 30% in the city over the last decade (while nationwide its hit an all-time low). And even the cities’ infamous sex shops have been forced to keep at least 60% of their merchandise from being X-rated for over 20 years now. In fact, a 2011 George Mason University study deemed New York the least “free” state in the union, referencing among other things, its strict anti-tobacco laws. And while the city and state of New York certainly have their fair share of problems, their access to health care and quality of education rank ahead of Cruz’s home state of Texas.

What exactly are the "NY values" he's against? I'm truly trying to understand his coded language.

[tgb]

It's code for Hymietown, or, if you prefer, Jew York.

[Holman]

What exactly are the "NY values" he's against? I'm truly trying to understand his coded language.

Godlessness. Everyone he's talking to knows exactly what he means.

[El Guapo]

FWIW, hinterland candidates have been dissing metropolitan candidates since at least Andrew Jackson.

And honestly, it's high time that big city candidates hit back at those uneducated backwater towns.

[Pyperkub]

I bet he has no problem soliciting donations from said New Yorkers however. Didn't he have a gay, jewish New Yorker hold a fundraiser where the fundraiser had to completely disavow it?

[Holman]

I bet he has no problem soliciting donations from said New Yorkers however. Didn't he have a gay, jewish New Yorker hold a fundraiser where the fundraiser had to completely disavow it?

Money trumps God.

(See what I did there?)

[Kraken]

What exactly are the "NY values" he's against? I'm truly trying to understand his coded language.

Godlessness. Everyone he's talking to knows exactly what he means.

Yup. Plus wrong-godliness.

[gbasden]

And honestly, it's high time that big city candidates hit back at those uneducated backwater towns.

Wouldn't that pretty much entirely be the Dems vs. the Repubs? The R's have been the party of anti-intellectualism and small town backwaters since the Southern Strategy was so successful.

[El Guapo]

And honestly, it's high time that big city candidates hit back at those uneducated backwater towns.

Wouldn't that pretty much entirely be the Dems vs. the Repubs? The R's have been the party of anti-intellectualism and small town backwaters since the Southern Strategy was so successful.

Right, but it's ok (standard even) to knock big city culture / life, as though somehow rural life is better / more authentic, but no one can say the converse. I'm saying it's high time that changed.

[gbasden]

And honestly, it's high time that big city candidates hit back at those uneducated backwater towns.

Wouldn't that pretty much entirely be the Dems vs. the Repubs? The R's have been the party of anti-intellectualism and small town backwaters since the Southern Strategy was so successful.

Right, but it's ok (standard even) to knock big city culture / life, as though somehow rural life is better / more authentic, but no one can say the converse. I'm saying it's high time that changed.

Oh, I fully agree about that!

[Smoove_B]

Of that I have no doubt, but what exactly does he mean? Is he blowing some type of dog-whistle?

Thankfully he was gracious enough to clarify his statements during last night's debate:

“Everybody understands that the values in New York City are socially liberal and pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage,” he said. “And focus on money and the media.”

Good luck with that.

[Isgrimnur]

WaPo

TED CRUZ (R-Tex. ) tells a sweet story about the sacrifice he and his wife made four years ago to finance his upstart campaign for the U.S. Senate. The story, as it turns out, is phony. That doesn’t come as a total surprise, since it is in keeping with the sham persona of Mr. Cruz’s candidacy for president.

Mr. Cruz’s account of getting his wife to agree “to liquidate our entire net worth, liquid net worth” so he could wage his underdog candidacy against the party favorite in the 2012 Senate Republican primary was debunked by the New York Times, which revealed that he took out as much as $1 million in loans, with much of the money loaned to the campaign. The loans from Goldman Sachs (where his wife works ) and Citibank were never disclosed, as required by law, to federal election officials but were subsequently included on financial disclosure forms he filed as a senator.

“Inadvertent filing error” was how Mr. Cruz characterized the failure to list the loans with the Federal Election Commission. Let’s give Mr. Cruz the benefit of the doubt and assume that this was not a calculated omission; that a Harvard-educated attorney who speaks endlessly of his smarts and legal prowess was unaware of requirements that candidates, including those running for offices far less lofty than the U.S. Senate, are able to follow without problem.

What’s harder to overlook is the hypocrisy. At the very time he was presenting himself to voters as an anti-establishment candidate free of Wall Street influence, he was getting a big loan from a Wall Street firm. So much for Mr. Cruz’s attacks on crony capitalism and his tale of putting everything on the line to get where he is.

[GreenGoo]

I don't understand why getting loans precludes the possibility of also liquidating all personal assets. If I start a business and liquidate my assets for startup capital and then subsequently (or concurrently) borrow a million dollars to help fund that business, have I not put everything on the line? Am I not also on the hook for the million dollars? Is that more of a sacrifice or less to go into debt for my business?

I guess I don't see it the same way as outlined in the quoted comments.

[Isgrimnur]

He doesn't talk about the loans that were taken because it detracts from his narrative. And he didn't even see fit to disclose them to regulators, which he's required to do.

[Jeff V]

I don't understand why getting loans precludes the possibility of also liquidating all personal assets. If I start a business and liquidate my assets for startup capital and then subsequently (or concurrently) borrow a million dollars to help fund that business, have I not put everything on the line? Am I not also on the hook for the million dollars? Is that more of a sacrifice or less to go into debt for my business?

I guess I don't see it the same way as outlined in the quoted comments.

You don't see how he disingenuously claims to be free of Wall Street influence despite being bankrolled by a large Wall Street bank? The banks are probably fine with his bogus narrative...they'll start pulling his strings should he find himself in power.

[ImLawBoy]

You guys need to read what GreenGoo is writing and not argue what you think he is writing.

I don't understand why getting loans precludes the possibility of also liquidating all personal assets.

[LawBeefaroni]

I don't understand why getting loans precludes the possibility of also liquidating all personal assets. If I start a business and liquidate my assets for startup capital and then subsequently (or concurrently) borrow a million dollars to help fund that business, have I not put everything on the line? Am I not also on the hook for the million dollars? Is that more of a sacrifice or less to go into debt for my business?

I guess I don't see it the same way as outlined in the quoted comments.

Because he has a net worth of a few million. If he liquidated everything, that's a pretty good 4 years. Or, more likely, he didn't liquidate everything.

And don't you think it's odd that someone with no assets would be loaned $1M by banks?

Either way, the story stinks but it's most likely that he took out the loan instead of purging all his assets. On paper he could claim he risked "everything" and be technically correct, if $1M was all he had, but it's very different than the story he told.

[geezer]

I don't understand why getting loans precludes the possibility of also liquidating all personal assets. If I start a business and liquidate my assets for startup capital and then subsequently (or concurrently) borrow a million dollars to help fund that business, have I not put everything on the line? Am I not also on the hook for the million dollars? Is that more of a sacrifice or less to go into debt for my business?

I guess I don't see it the same way as outlined in the quoted comments.

Because he has a net worth of a few million. If he liquidated everything, that's a pretty good 4 years. Or, more likely, he didn't liquidate everything.

And don't you think it's odd that someone with no assets would be loaned $1M by banks?

Either way, the story stinks but it's most likely that he took out the loan instead of purging all his assets. On paper he could claim he risked "everything" and be technically correct, if $1M was all he had, but it's very different than the story he told.

Someone with no assets wasn't loaned $1MM. I loathe Ted Cruz, probably as much as I have loathed any politician ever, but my understanding is that he said he took out loans *against his assets.*

The way I think it worked is that he would have an investment account, or a retirement account or something at Goldman, and depending on the amount (usually at least a million,) investment banks will basically extend lines of credit that can be called in against the funds in your account.

So to say that they "liquidated" everything probably isn't literally true, but at the same time their actual net worth could have been zero because of the loan to value of holdings.

Why would someone do this, you might ask? Because, he can get access to the cash *while still profiting on his investment income.* Basically for the same reason that, when someone proudly claims that they *never* would take out a loan on a car, I shake my head.

[GreenGoo]

I don't understand why getting loans precludes the possibility of also liquidating all personal assets. If I start a business and liquidate my assets for startup capital and then subsequently (or concurrently) borrow a million dollars to help fund that business, have I not put everything on the line? Am I not also on the hook for the million dollars? Is that more of a sacrifice or less to go into debt for my business?

I guess I don't see it the same way as outlined in the quoted comments.

Because he has a net worth of a few million. If he liquidated everything, that's a pretty good 4 years. Or, more likely, he didn't liquidate everything.

And don't you think it's odd that someone with no assets would be loaned $1M by banks?

Well the quote didn't say what his net worth was/is, and no, I don't think it's odd that someone with no assets got loaned a million dollars. Trump has gone bankrupt a number of times and somehow he's a billionaire. I assume knowing the right people or being the right person gets you access to that kind of money.

[Rip]

He doesn't talk about the loans that were taken because it detracts from his narrative. And he didn't even see fit to disclose them to regulators, which he's required to do.

If setting up your own mail server isn't much of an issue, how can this be?

[Isgrimnur]

Setting up your own e-mail server isn't specifically listed as being illegal.

[Rip]

Setting up your own e-mail server isn't specifically listed as being illegal.

Having classified information on it is.

[Isgrimnur]

Come back with those goalposts!

[Isgrimnur]

Birther lawsuit

As it turns out, Trump's concerns over a lawsuit weren't unwarranted. In fact, one was filed that same day by Houston lawyer Newton Boris Schwartz, Sr. The suit asks a federal judge to define the "(1) status (2) qualifications and (3) eligibility or ineligibility of defendant for election to the office of the President and vice President of the United States." In the poorly-written 28-page complaint, Schwartz noted that this question is "now ripe for decision," and then invoked the so-called birther arguments used against President Barack Obama (see the full complaint below):

If all that was and is required for Defendant's eligibility for the election to the office of the President and Vice President of the United States is that one of his biological parents be a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth in Canada outside the 50 United States...then why have the "birthers" or "doubters" and questioners of the place of birth of the 44th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama have persisted to this date and prior to his 2008 elections in 2008 and 2012? When undisputedly: (1) he was born in the U.S. state of Hawaii after its admission on August 21, 1959 and is documented by his birth records..."

It's unclear what will come of this complaint, but this isn't the only birther action that Cruz is contending with. Also on Thursday, the Arizona Republic reported that Rep. Kelly Townsend, a Republican state legislator from the Phoenix suburb of Mesa, is "circulating a measure at the Arizona legislature that would call a U.S. constitutional convention to outline what it means to be a natural-born citizen." The paper notes that Townsend hopes to get her legislature on board before reaching out to other states since, after all, "it will take 34 states to convene such a meeting, something that hasn't happened since 1787."

[Smoove_B]

[Jaymann]

I love it when the conservative asshats get hoisted by their own petard.

[MonkeyFinger]

Don't think this has been posted yet... did anyone see / read Ted's State of the Union address from the future? Oy.

[Smoove_B]

I think Ted Cruz might have a bigger following here than I would have guessed -- today he announced he doesn't have health insurance:

"I’ll tell you, you know who one of those millions of Americans is who’s lost their health care because of Obamacare? That would be me," Cruz told a Manchester, New Hampshire, audience. "I don’t have health care right now."

...

Cruz explained that he had purchased an individual policy and that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas had canceled all of its individual policies in Texas, effective Dec. 31.

[LawBeefaroni]

I think Ted Cruz might have a bigger following here than I would have guessed -- today he announced he doesn't have health insurance:

"I’ll tell you, you know who one of those millions of Americans is who’s lost their health care because of Obamacare? That would be me," Cruz told a Manchester, New Hampshire, audience. "I don’t have health care right now."

...

Cruz explained that he had purchased an individual policy and that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas had canceled all of its individual policies in Texas, effective Dec. 31.

Here's what happened. At least here. HCSC BCBS underpriced their exchange plans. Instead of taking losses on these patients, or raising prices, they dropped the product and moved patients into a different lower-cost (few provider options) network. They gave them 60 or so days notice.

He didn't lose his insurance coverage (not AKA "health care") because of Obamacare, he lost it because BCBS made a business decision to cancel it.

[Smoove_B]

He didn't lose his insurance coverage (not AKA "health care") because of Obamacare, he lost it because BCBS made a business decision to cancel it.

Yeah, because Obama.

And not for anything, he could still sign up for OBAMACARE until the 31st of this month. Maybe someone should send him a link?

[Isgrimnur]

Single payer would solve his problem.

[geezer]

I think Ted Cruz might have a bigger following here than I would have guessed -- today he announced he doesn't have health insurance:

"I’ll tell you, you know who one of those millions of Americans is who’s lost their health care because of Obamacare? That would be me," Cruz told a Manchester, New Hampshire, audience. "I don’t have health care right now."

...

Cruz explained that he had purchased an individual policy and that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas had canceled all of its individual policies in Texas, effective Dec. 31.

Here's what happened. At least here. HCSC BCBS underpriced their exchange plans. Instead of taking losses on these patients, or raising prices, they dropped the product and moved patients into a different lower-cost (few provider options) network. They gave them 60 or so days notice.

He didn't lose his insurance coverage (not AKA "health care") because of Obamacare, he lost it because BCBS made a business decision to cancel it.

That's exactly right. I have (well, had) apparently a similar plan - A BCBS TX PPO plan. BCBS cancelled *all* Texas PPOs across the board. A couple things:

1) BCBS offered no explanation and simply terminated all PPO plans. They did give a few months warning.
2) BCBS automagically assigned people to a new, HMO-based plan. (The pricing was actually about 25% lower IIRC)*
3) BCBS did retain PPO *employer-based* plans, at least for this year.

IMHO, this falls squarely on BCBS's shoulders. What I can't figure out is why he'd be on an individual exchange plan. Doesn't Congress supposedly have bennies?

* As usual, Ted is a big fat liar. His quote wasn't 50% higher, and he's not without coverage unless he chooses to be.

[tgb]

BCBS of Arizona did the same thing, except the plan they switched us to was $400/month more. Our PCP only takes BCBS and Humana plans from the Marketplace, which meant we had to switch as of the first to Humana.

Except none of our specialists take Humana. It's not a big deal for me, since the only specialist I see on a regular basis is my cardiologist, and that's only twice a year. tlr, on the other hand, had to find 6 or 7 new specialists that would take our plan.

Thanks, Obama.

[Zarathud]

If Ted Cruz can't work his way through the process of buying health care insurance, he's not fit to be President.

[Holman]

It's extraordinary how fiercely Republicans are lining up to dump on Cruz. Normally an unpopular politician would get polite dismissal at worst, but this is a full-on attack from his own side. Democrats don't even have to lift a finger.

Part of it is that he's an asshole and everyone hates him almost as much as he deserves, but part of it is also tactical: the GOP needs a designated not-Trump champion ASAP, and Cruz is in the way. You can see this reflected further down the polls, where Rubio/Bush/Christie/Kasich are attacking each other rather than Trump. They know the purge is coming.