Skip to main content

View Diary: Sen. Ted 'Calgary' Cruz striving to cement his reputation for McCarthyism (114 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There's something I don't get (26+ / 0-)

    If Cruz is so against "liberal Harvard" then why the fuck did he choose to go to school there? There are certainly other colleges or universities to attend. Hell, he could've cemented his conservative creds with a law degree from Liberty or Oral Roberts.

    What's wrong with America? I'll tell you. Everything Romney said was pre-chewed wads of cud from Republicans from the last 30 years and yet he managed thru a combination of racism and selling the (false) hope of riches to get 47% of the national vote.

    by ontheleftcoast on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 12:39:24 PM PST

    •  Prestige (7+ / 0-)

      There's really no red version of the Ivies.

      •  How about Clown College? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Youffraita, Anne Elk, RUNDOWN, Leap Year

        Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. John Kenneth Galbraith

        by Sam Sara on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:35:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  their history has been spent purging open lefties (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Just Bob, Icicle68, RUNDOWN, Nicci August

        despite the claims of a takeover, since for every left-leaning faculty member in the humanities or social sciences, the engineering, science, and business schools/colleges have exponentially more conservatives, including the most unrepentant sexists and racists

        The end of the Second World War, combined with post-war anticommunist hysteria and the rise of pro-business ideology, constituted the first watershed with regard to heterodox economics in America.  There were some Marxist economists in the academy before 1945, but by the middle 1950s they had all but disappeared.....Discrimination in terms of academic appointments and tenure has always affected heterodox economists.  In the 1930s, a number of economists became involved in union activities, progressive political activities, and/or were fellow-travellers if not members of the Communist Party.  While being a communist was not immediate grounds for dismissal, being politically active was.  The state also began to get involved in attacking radical and progressive economist....In spite of the changing social and political environment in the 1960s, American economics departments largely maintained an anti-radical feeling (to some degree at least) and a pro-free enterprise position.  These, together with the dominance of neoclassical economic theory in terms of teaching, research, and disciplinary status, made it difficult for radical, social and Institutional economists to obtain academic appointments in the 1960s and early 1970s, especially at Ph.D.-granting institutions.  But even if heterodox economists were appointed, these two factors meant that they faced harassment and were often denied re-appointment and/or tenure.   The most publicized event in this latter regard occurred at Harvard when, in 1972, its economics department denied tenure to Sam Bowles and reappointment to Arthur MacEwan, with the result that, by 1974, four of its five radical economists had left.   Similar events occurred at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Yale University, Lehman College and San Jose State University, where four conservative neoclassical economists replaced three heterodox economists and its President continually threatened Douglas Dowd with dismissal..... One senior professor in our department (Carl Uhr) has publicly made the statement that anyone "who takes the Robinson-Sraffa view on the capital controversy deserves tenure only in the state mental hospital". [Hunt, 1972]....Moreover, while neoclassical economists would still attack and criticize heterodox economics, they would have less latitude to use institutional power to harass, exclude and silence heterodox economists.  Thus, with the eventual emergence of a cohesive heterodox community, the landscape of American economics will once again become openly contested, with pluralistic economic discourse. Link
        "the eventual emergence of a cohesive heterodox community" is not in the Ivies nor most other places as such discourse is still marginalized.

        Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ Now with more SNAP: Saturday hate mail-a-palooza End of a series

        by annieli on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:39:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ahem. (5+ / 0-)

        The University of Chicago Law School is both elite and has a strong conservative presence.

      •  How dare you impugn the the reputation of (0+ / 0-)

        Regent and Liberty Universities.  If they are not Red Ivies, I don't know what is.

        And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

        by MrJersey on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 10:18:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  i think the more interesting question is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ontheleftcoast, Nicci August

      how did someone with little to no ability to think and reason ever get admitted to harvard.

      also, too: critical legal theory is the one of the best things to ever happen to the field of law.  imo.

      •  I think it shows he's not as much of a moron (3+ / 0-)

        as he plays in public. He's pandering to idiots to do the bidding of billionaires. That takes more brains than we'd like to give him credit for but he probably does have them.

        What's wrong with America? I'll tell you. Everything Romney said was pre-chewed wads of cud from Republicans from the last 30 years and yet he managed thru a combination of racism and selling the (false) hope of riches to get 47% of the national vote.

        by ontheleftcoast on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 03:16:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  now that's a chilling thought! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ontheleftcoast
          •  Indeed it is. (5+ / 0-)

            Cruz is the most cynical politician to come along since Nixon, and that's saying a lot. He makes the pathological liar Newt Gingrich look like a choir boy scout.

            The problem is he's not a Louie Gohmert, a Michelle Bachman, or even an Alan West who are so dumb they think they are saying something brilliant. He's whip smart and hungry for power. He has immense appeal to the low-information voters, he's consolidating support among Texas wingnuts, and his having a Cuban-born father erases a lot of the Republican disadvantage with Hispanics.

            He will win the Demagogue of the Year award for years to come.

            •  Erases the Republican disadvantage? (0+ / 0-)

              What leads you to think that Cruz having a Cuban-born father "erases a lot of the Republican disadvantage with Hispanics": is that a Texas thing?

              I don't think that would apply nation-wide, but if you think it will apply in Texas, would you explain why?

              •  Same reasoning works with Mario Rubio in Florida (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MrJersey

                "See. See. We're not anti-Hispanic. We have this guy here."
                Similar thing with Tim Scott in South Carolina. As long as you have a token to trot out, you don't have to talk about issues as much.

                And a few Hispanics (yes, they have low-information voters, too) won't look past the name when they vote.

        •  Beware the way this guy fudges (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rube Goldberg, ebrann

          He truly knows how to sling it---to misdirect without quite lying.  He's always using language that weasels out of the direct lie.

          This is McCarthyism at its worst--and don't underestimate this guy as a master of it.

          Cruz's Senate biography--which, by the way, does not mention that he was born in Canada--states that:

          Ted’s father was born in Cuba, fought in the revolution, and was imprisoned and tortured.  He fled to Texas in 1957, penniless and not speaking a word of English.  
          http://www.cruz.senate.gov/...

          Now that statement is true--as far as it goes.  However, he's clearly trying to imply that his father was fighting against Communism and Castro.  And the facts are quite different--

          His father was jailed and tortured by the Fulgencio Batista regime and fought for Fidel Castro in the Cuban Revolution[37] but "didn't know Castro was a Communist" and later became a staunch critic of Castro when "the rebel leader took control and began seizing private property and suppressing dissent."[38]
          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          If you knew a little bit of history, or were old enough, you would be able to figure out that Castro was not in power in 1957.  But how many people know this?  And it was certainly "noble" for Ted's father to come out against Castro--but that wasn't until he was already living in the United States.

          Tell me.  Was Cruz lying in his bio?  Or was he just a slime?

          "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change things, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."-Buckminster Fuller

          by NCJan on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 06:26:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Can't wait to seethe SNL skit in b&w when Ted (0+ / 0-)

            subpoenas the zombie Dalton Trumbo to testify before Cruz's new un-USA activities Senate committee.  You know how it works out.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site