Press "Enter" to skip to content

ResCon1

Back to the Future!

How Ted Cruz lost the 2024 Republican Presidential Nomination to Mike Pompeo and Tom Cotton.

HOUSTON, Texas, March 14, 2024—Sen. Ted Cruz today announced that he is withdrawing from the presidential race after suffering lopsided defeats in every primary and caucus state thus far, including a stinging defeat in his own home state of Texas.

Cruz’s candidacy never really took off and was stillborn almost from the start because of controversial remarks he made in 2021 and 2022.

Cruz harshly criticized Trump supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6, 2021. He said the January 6 protest was a “violent terrorist attack.”

Cruz quickly retracted that remark after being called to account by Fox News host Tucker Carlson. However, his presidential candidacy never recovered. Out on the campaign trail, Cruz’s depiction of the January 6 protest was used against him by his GOP rivals.

Mike Pompeo. “Let’s be clear,” said former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during the Feb. 22, 2024, debate at the Citadel in South Carolina.

Senator Cruz called Trump supporters “violent terrorists.” That depiction is wrong. It is inaccurate. It is a lie. And it is slur against millions of good and decent Americans whose only crime was to support President Trump. The senator ought to be ashamed.

Cruz said the remark was a one-off and used only to criticize those January 6 protesters who assaulted the police. CNN, though, found that Cruz had used that controversial depiction “at least 17 previous times in official written statements, in tweets, in remarks at Senate hearings, and in interviews.”

Cruz’s rivals for the nomination said that Cruz was being disingenuous. They said that Cruz is a Harvard-trained lawyer who always chooses his words very carefully.

“He knew what he was saying. It was no mistake and it was no accident. Those reprehensible remarks reflect a lifelong habit the Senator has of always trying to have it both ways,” Pompeo said.

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), meanwhile, reminded voters that former President Trump called Cruz “Lyin’ Ted” during the 2016 GOP presidential primary race.

Trump has remained officially neutral in the 2024 presidential contest. However, his comments about Cruz have helped to sink Cruz’s campaign.

Three weeks ago, for instance, the former president told reporters that, although neutral, “I will tell you: Ted has a lot to answer for. A lot. And I’ll just leave it at that.”

Pompeo and Cotton are both military veterans, and they spent all winter hammering away at Cruz’s lack of military service.

“Senator Cruz, Secretary Pompeo, and I are all Harvard Law alumni ,” said Cotton during the March 3 debate in Huntsville, Alabama.

But only Mike and I left the Ivy League to serve in the U.S. military out on the frontiers of freedom. Ted, by contrast, is a career politician whose sole pursuit has been political power for himself and his cronies.

Defense and foreign policy issues became top campaign issues last fall after Russia invaded Ukraine and China attacked Taiwan’s electrical grid. The intermittent blackouts have persisted for months and are seen as the prelude to China’s attempted annexation of Taiwan.

Iranian proxy forces, meanwhile, have attacked Saudi Arabia, and Tehran has announced that its nuclear weapons capability is “non-negotiable.”

“Two years ago,” said GOP political consultant Whit Ayres, “no one thought defense and foreign policy issues would be the big, defining issues in this race. But things have gotten so bad so quickly that voters can’t help but take note and be concerned.”

Working class GOP primary voters, he added—”especially the increasing number of Hispanic Republicans and African American military veterans—they give pride of place to military service. That matters to them.”

Elitist. In addition, Cruz was hurt by his wife’s work for Goldman Sachs. His rivals used this work to portray Cruz as an out-of-touch elitist more interested in catering to the well-heeled and the wealthy than the working class voters who compose an increasing share of the GOP primary electorate.

Pompeo and Cotton wished Cruz well. Pompeo said that, if elected, he would consider appointing Cruz attorney general. Cotton said Cruz would make a good Supreme Court appointee.

Feature photo credit: Ted Cruz via the Dallas Morning News, courtesy of NBC News Dallas-Ft. Worth.

January 6 Lies and Distortions

January 6 is a day that will live in infamy. So, too, will left-wing lies and distortions about that infamous day.

The January 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol never should have happened; and Donald Trump bears responsibility for inspiring the assault, for failing to deter and prevent it, and then failing to help stop it once it happened.

This was more than enough reason to impeach and convict Trump, as I argued at the time.

However, Democrats and “progressives,” aided by the media, have since depicted the protest as something that it was not: an insurrection involving hundreds of “racists” and “white supremacists” intent on “hanging Mike Pence” and violently seizing control of Congress.

In truth, a few thousand protesters marched on the Capitol and a few hundred of these protesters violently clashed with the police. None of the protesters were found to possess guns or firearms; and, despite hyperbolic, martial rhetoric from some of the protesters, they had no plan or scheme to seize control of Congress.

The protest got out of hand and became a full-scale riot because the Capitol Police were, as Andrew McCarthy explains, “grossly undermanned [and] unprepared.” Weakness begot aggression.

Yet, today on Face the Nation, Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago repeatedly referred to protesters who “broke into the Capitol.” But in truth, as we’ve seen in real-time video, many of the protesters were allowed into the Capitol building by police who opened the door for them and let them in.

Nor is this surprising. The Capitol has long been welcoming  and hospitable to visitors. Ours is a democracy, after all; and those who foot the bill and elect our Congressional representatives have always been welcomed into the corridors of power.

For this reason, many of the protesters genuinely seemed to think they had a right to enter the Capitol. And the Capitol Police initially took a soft and relaxed approach to the protest because they seemed to view it as benign and non-threatening.

It was only after a small minority of protesters grew violent and viciously assaulted the police that things began to change.

Professor Pape also insists that “race is an element and race is a driver” of Trump’s January 6 protest. But he reaches this conclusion only through the worst possible interpretation of the evidence that he himself presents.

The evidence that Professor Pape presents is this: most of the 700+ indicted Trump protesters came from politically blue urban areas with declining white populations. This, he says, “dovetails with the right-wing conspiracy theory… called the great replacement.”

In short, these Trump protesters were racists and white supremacists angry that their communities are becoming more black and brown.

Blue State Politics. That’s one possible, albeit farfetched, interpretation. Here’s another more plausible interpretation:

These Trump protesters who live in blue enclaves have seen firsthand the damage wrought by “progressive” Democratic rule. Thus they are more politically engaged—and enraged—and more politically sensitive than ordinary red state voters.

In other words, politics, not race, is what drove these Trump supporters.

Because minorities vote Democrat in significantly greater numbers than white voters, it is all too easy to conflate race and politics. But we should avoid conflating these two factors unless we have clear and compelling evidence that race and not politics is at work. Professor Pape presents no such evidence.

The bottom line: we can and should condemn Trump and the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill riot. However, we mustn’t allow “progressives,” Democrats, and their media fellow travelers to use January 6 as a pretext to vilify all of the Trump protesters and especially all Trump supporters.

Most had peaceful intentions and were the misguided victims of Trump’s lies and demagoguery. Others were more malicious and sinister in their intent. Fair enough. However, the same can be said of Trump’s political opponents in the media and Democratic Party.

Feature photo credit: Political Science Professor Robert Pape (L) and Donald Trump (R), courtesy of Face the Nation and Ballotpedia, respectively.

Joe Manchin’s Profile in Courage

The Senator from West Virginia deserves, but won’t get, honor and gratitude for stopping Bernie Biden’s $5-Trillion ‘Build Back Better’ monstrosity. 

In 1956, Democratic Senator John F. Kennedy and his gifted speechwriter, Ted Sorenson, authored a Pulitzer Prize winning biography called Profiles in Courage.

The book celebrated eight United States Senators who exhibited rare political courage by taking principled stands, at great political cost to themselves, to do right by and for the country.

Today, we can, we should, and we must add one more name to Kennedy’s honored and revered list: Senator Joe Manchin.

True, by refusing to succumb to left-wing demands that he rubber-stamp Bernie Biden’s $5-Trillion “Build Back Better” monstrosity, Sen. Manchin is hardly defying the will of his constituents. To the contrary: Biden is deeply unpopular in West Virginia, and polls show that the vast majority of West Virginians oppose his “Build Back Better” monstrosity.

Still, Manchin is a Democrat and the one Senator whose vote can make or break this disastrously transformative legislation. As such, he is under tremendous political pressure to buckle under “for Joe,” “for his president,” and to be a “team player.”

In fact, far left Democratic senators, congressmen, and party activists have already taken to Twitter to impugn Manchin’s integrity and to heap opprobrium on him for daring to dissent from “progressive” party orthodoxy.

In a better world and a politically healthier country, Manchin’s brave and principled stand would be honored and applauded for what it is: a profile in courage. But instead, because Manchin is siding with conservatives and opposing “progressives,” he is (predictably) being demonized and cast as the toad in the road.

The authors of Profiles in Courage knew better and so do we.

Feature photo credit: Then Senator John F. Kennedy (left) and Senator Joe Manchin now (right), courtesy of 1957timecapsule.wordpress.com via the Daily JFK and the Associated Press via the Honolulu Star-Advertiserrespectively.

Why 14 GOP Congressmen Voted Against Juneteenth National Independence Day

The media suggest that it’s all about “racism” and “white supremacy.” In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

The 14 Republican congressmen who voted against making Juneteenth a national holiday ought to be recognized as profiles in political courage. They took a principled stand to make a legitimate and much-needed point that will be ignored and dismissed by progressive critics eager to demonize anyone who disagrees with them as a “racist” and a “white supremacist.”

The legitimate and much-needed point: that by calling Juneteenth “National Independence Day,” we detract from the longstanding July 4 Independence Day holiday and create, in effect, two independence days: one for caucasians and non-blacks (July 4) and one for blacks (June 19).

Thus we risk aggravating racial tensions and racial divisions when, instead, we should aspire to do the exact opposite: bring Americans together as one people and one nation.

Founding Principles. All Americans, after all, are heirs to the Declaration of Independence and the independent republic that the Declaration established or at least initiated.

That’s why, during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s, Martin Luther King Jr. famously appealed to the Declaration of Independence, as well as as the Constitution of the United States.

In his 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech, King declared:

When the architects of our great republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.

This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

True enough, as King noted:

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given its colored people a bad check, a check that has come back marked “insufficient funds.”

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation.

So we have come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and security of justice.

Similarly, as President Obama famously declared in his 2004 keynote address to the Democratic National Convention:

There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.

Political Courage. For this reason, thoughtful GOP congressmen, such as Chip Roy (Texas) and Thomas Massie (Kentucky) urged Democrats in Congress to change the name of Juneteenth from “National Independence Day” to something more fitting and appropriate, such as “National Emancipation Day,” “National Freedom Day,” or “National Liberation Day.”

“I fully support creating a holiday to celebrate the abolition of slavery, a dark portion of our nation’s history,” Massie explained. But “I think this day is misnamed.” Why “push Americans to pick one of these two days as their independence day based on their racial identity?” he asked.

“As a country,” Roy said, “we must stop dividing ourselves by race and unite in our common pursuit of the ideals set forth in our Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal.”

Democrats refused to change the name of Juneteenth; and so, 14 Republican congressmen cast a protest vote to make an important political point. This, obviously, doesn’t make them “racists” or “white supremacists.” Instead, it makes them principled and courageous.

As for Juneteenth, despite being inappropriately named, the holiday need not divide us. In fact, quite the opposite: all Americans, obviously, can celebrate the triumph of America’s founding principles brought about by the end of slavery and the emancipation of African Americans.

It’s just that, by misnaming the holiday, Congress has made the task of racial reconciliation and national unity more difficult. Fortunately for us and for posterity, 14 brave Republican congressmen have drawn attention to Congress’ error through a rare act of political courage.

Good on them.

Feature photo credit: GOP Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) is a profile in courage for voting against Juneteenth even though he supports a federal holiday commemorating the end of slavery in America, courtesy of Mediaite.

Follow the Science and Burn Your Mask

After more than a year of mask mandates and mask fetishization, the results of Uncle Sam’s latest scientific experiment are in. Masks failed.

Now that mask mandates have been lifted just about everywhere in the United States save for airlines, trains, buses, and other forms of public transportation, it’s a good time to revisit whether masks ever made much sense, did any good, or caused any harm.

The rationale for masks was always weak to begin with. Masks failed to stop the spread of the influenza virus during the 1918 pandemic and they fared no better in the subsequent decades. The New York Times reports that, according two Nancy Leung, an epidemiologist at the University of Hong Kong:

There has been no clear evidence from randomized controlled trials—the gold standard in scientific research—that masking reduced transmission of influenza viruses in a community.

The evidence for the efficacy of masks to stop or slow the spread of the coronavirus is also sorely lacking.

“There are several case studies of Covid-19 outbreaks in confined spaces despite good mask adherence, reports Connor Harris in the City Journal. Marine Corps recruits in 2020, for instance, suffered an outbreak of COIVD despite wearing cloth masks almost constantly.

Michigan v. Texas. When Texas rescinded its mask mandate March 10, 2021, COVID cases fell by 17 percent two weeks later. In Michigan, meanwhile, where masks continued to be required, COVID cases spiked by 133 percent during that same two-week period, reports Philip Klein.

Michigan did not (mostly) lift its mask requirement until June 1—almost three months later than Texas. Yet, comparative data does not show that Michigan benefited as a result.

Indeed, the incidence of COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths either roughly corresponds with the difference in population between these two states or is clearly in Texas’s favor.

Texas’ population is about three times that of Michigan, and the state has had 2.9 times as many COVID cases and 2.5 times as many COVID deaths. As of June 5, Texas is averaging about twice as many COVID hospitalizations and 3.1 times as many COVID cases in the preceding two-week period.

As Michael Betrus reports at Rational Ground:

California issued a statewide mask mandate in June 2020. Rhode Island issued its mandate back in May 2020, as did neighboring Connecticut in April 2020. What else do these states have in common?

They were among leaders in COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths long after implementing their mandates. Were they infected by nearby states? New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oregon, and many counties in Nevada and Arizona also had mask mandates.

Florida did not have a statewide mask mandate. Nor did Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming, Iowa, Missouri, or Oklahoma. Other states like North Dakota, Arizona, and Indiana issued short-term mask mandates.

These states fared no worse and in most cases fared far better than states with mask mandates. Why would this be, if face masks work?

“It would be an overstatement to say that cloth and surgical masks are unambiguously ineffective or harmful,” Harris writes. “But neither is there a firm case that they provide any meaningful benefit.”

The harmful effects of masks are typically ignored or downplayed; but these harmful effects are real and should give us serious pause when, during the next pandemic, government officials try to enforce new mask mandates—especially on children, who are less able to cope with mask-induced problems.

Face rashes, headaches, bacterial infections, dental problems (cavities and gingivitis), and fiber inhalation are all problems, Harris notes, associated with masks during this pandemic.

“Potential harms to children,” he adds, “deserve special mention.

Two Italian professors of plastic surgery, for instance, have hypothesized that the pressure of elastic ear straps may give children permanently protruding ears.

Some child development researchers also worry that widespread mask-wearing may hamper children’s linguistic and emotional development.

There may even be ways by which masks might worsen Covid-19 itself. The basic reason is simple: germs caught by a mask do not simply disappear.

The evidence for these is spotty or speculative but concerning enough to merit attention. In any case, the evidence justifying mask mandates is often equally speculative.

Children. One thing that is not speculative is the educational and social damage that masks inflict on children. Non-verbal communication involving facial expressions—especially in the classroom—is one of the primary ways that teachers communicate with their students.

Social interaction between and among students, likewise, is integral to a child’s development. Yet, masks induce in children social isolation.

They signal, clearly, that social interaction is risky because it can result in contraction of the coronavirus. But the data has shown all along that children are at extraordinarily low risk of getting COVID and at even less risk of suffering serious ailments even if they do.

In short, if we are, indeed, to “follow the science,” then we must abandon the fetishization of masks. They never made much sense to begin with; they demonstrably did not do any good; and they actually inflicted serious harm on people, especially children. Good riddance.

Feature photo credit: Americans, free at last of the onerous and counterproductive mask mandate, celebrate their newfound freedom and independence, courtesy of MedPage Today.