The Brutalism of Ted Cruz

[Seattle Husker]

Reading this article from David Brooks on the heels of the birther argument being levied at Cruz and the loan "scandal" leads me to believe that someone on the Right has chosen to take down Cruz. His 10pt lead in Iowa is evaporating as we speak.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/opinion/the-brutalism-of-ted-cruz.html?_r=0

I'm not a fan of Cruz, clearly, but it's too obvious that all these attacks are coming out simultaneously. Who's behind them? The RNC? Trump? Even left wing blog TalkingPointsMemo claims they were holding the "birther" information for a few months until Breitbart posted the info. Clearly some power brokers on the right have decided Cruz's time in the spotlight is over.

 

[nashhorn]

Hmm, sounds similar to the killing of Ron Paul.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Seems like pretty basic political opposition stuff. I suspect that Trump and Rubio are behind this. If you think about it, Cruz supporters are a coalition of people who like Trump and detest the "establishment" (whoever that is) but prefer not to go with someone quite that unconventional and people who distrust the establishment and want someone more conservative than Rubio. However, this second group is conservative in the traditional sense, not in the Trump sense and would never consider voting for Trump.

Trump wants to knock off Cruz to pick off the Phil Elliotts of the world. Rubio wants to knock him off in hopes of picking up the Cruz supporters who don't like Trump. If Cruz drops out (not likely), expect a slight Rightward shift from Rubio to try to pick up those supporters.

 

[Joe Fan]

They love him in New York, of course
But did they unintentionally support his statement?

 

[UTChE96]

Wait a minute? The NYT wrote a hit piece about a leading conservative Republican presidential candidate? Simply shocking!

 

[Phil Elliott]

Trump wants to knock off Cruz to pick off the Phil Elliotts of the world.

If you mean a strict constructionist who will nevertheless vote for whoever is running against Hillary, even if it's Trump, or even if it's John Kasich, that is me.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[huisache]

New York has no values

 

[Seattle Husker]

I get why Cruz is trying to attack Trump as a "Northerner". It's funny how for the distant future 9/11 can be used as a trump card (no pun intended) though. Does Washington D.C. get the same treatment?

 

[Mr. Deez]

I get why Cruz is trying to attack Trump as a "Northerner". It's funny how for the distant future 9/11 can be used as a trump card (no pun intended) though. Does Washington D.C. get the same treatment?

I've never understood the idea of bashing an entire city or state. Obviously, Democrats will carry New York, but why reinforce that needlessly?

 

[Phil Elliott]

I don't think it's needless. Trump are Cruz are pretty much tied at the top, so they have to go after each other. Cruz is just trying to say, in a sound-bite way, that Trump is not a conservative. He can sideswipe NY and nobody outside NY is going to care. If NY gets all butt-hurt over it, that is probably a plus with Cruz supporters.

 

[El Torito]

Reading this article from David Brooks on the heels of the birther argument being levied at Cruz and the loan "scandal" leads me to believe that someone on the Right has chosen to take down Cruz. His 10pt lead in Iowa is evaporating as we speak.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/opinion/the-brutalism-of-ted-cruz.html?_r=0

I'm not a fan of Cruz, clearly, but it's too obvious that all these attacks are coming out simultaneously. Who's behind them? The RNC? Trump? Even left wing blog TalkingPointsMemo claims they were holding the "birther" information for a few months until Breitbart posted the info. Clearly some power brokers on the right have decided Cruz's time in the spotlight is over.

His ideological preferences aside, we can generally depend on David Brooks to color within the lines when it comes to accurately laying out facts in support of his opinions. This piece, however, is indicative of either an intentional mischaracterization of Ted Cruz, or recklessly sloppy work on the part of Brooks.

As laid out by The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto in his article "Brooks Borks Cruz," Brooks casts Ted Cruz as lacking Christian virtues of "compassion, gentleness, and mercy." Brooks smears him with what he calls a "pagan brutalism" for arguing in support of mandatory sentences for habitual offenders ("three strikes" defendants). With a manipulated reading of the case Dretke v. Haley, Brooks strongly implies that Ted Cruz's "pagan brutalism" was on full display in this case, illustrating an inquisitor's glee for draconian prison sentences. Some important insights to be gleaned from Taranto's article about Brooks' misleading attacks:

• Ted Cruz was not the prosecutor at the trial court. He represented the State at the appellate level. Thus, the case is not an example of Ted Cruz's prosecutorial judgment but, rather, an example of Ted Cruz's abilities to defend his position before the Supreme Court.
• Ted Cruz won the case before the Supreme Court on a 6-3 vote, thus vindicating his argument.
• Haley was a habitual defender who collected three felony convictions. He, however, collected his second offense before his first conviction became final. The prosecutor's error was procedural, not substantive.

Taranto quite accurately summarizes how far Brooks is off:

"Cruz’s successful appeal in Haley tells us nothing about him except that he was a competent solicitor general. His job was to make legal arguments, not moral judgments about crime and punishment or personal ones about particular criminal defendants. If Brooks thinks Haley’s punishment was unjust—and there is nothing to suggest he has an informed view of the matter at all—he can fault the legislators who passed the three-strikes law, the prosecutors who applied (and misapplied) it, and the trial judge who imposed the sentence.

Brooks means to denounce Cruz, not to vindicate Haley. Criticizing politicians, even denouncing them, is part of the job of an opinion columnist. But Brooks’s treatment of this case is either deliberately deceptive or recklessly ignorant. It may raise questions of character, but not Ted Cruz’s."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/brooks-borks-cruz-1452628864

 

[Joe Fan]

This is amusing in light of Cruz/Trump in the debate last night.
1999 Trump interview on partial birth abortion and gays in the military, etc
He notes, multiple times, his views on those topics are determined by where he is from. He even says he is from New York and not Iowa

 

[Mr. Deez]

I don't think it's needless. Trump are Cruz are pretty much tied at the top, so they have to go after each other. Cruz is just trying to say, in a sound-bite way, that Trump is not a conservative. He can sideswipe NY and nobody outside NY is going to care. If NY gets all butt-hurt over it, that is probably a plus with Cruz supporters.

I do understand why it benefits Cruz in the primary. Many GOP primary voters like that sort of thing. However, it only turns off voters in those areas. Furthermore, he had much better bases on which he could attack Trump's lack of conservatism. For example, he could rely on substance.

 

[towersniper]

His ideological preferences aside, we can generally depend on David Brooks to color within the lines when it comes to accurately laying out facts in support of his opinions. This piece, however, is indicative of either an intentional mischaracterization of Ted Cruz, or recklessly sloppy work on the part of Brooks.

As laid out by The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto in his article "Brooks Borks Cruz," Brooks casts Ted Cruz as lacking Christian virtues of "compassion, gentleness, and mercy." Brooks smears him with what he calls a "pagan brutalism" for arguing in support of mandatory sentences for habitual offenders ("three strikes" defendants). With a manipulated reading of the case Dretke v. Haley, Brooks strongly implies that Ted Cruz's "pagan brutalism" was on full display in this case, illustrating an inquisitor's glee for draconian prison sentences. Some important insights to be gleaned from Taranto's article about Brooks' misleading attacks:

• Ted Cruz was not the prosecutor at the trial court. He represented the State at the appellate level. Thus, the case is not an example of Ted Cruz's prosecutorial judgment but, rather, an example of Ted Cruz's abilities to defend his position before the Supreme Court.
• Ted Cruz won the case before the Supreme Court on a 6-3 vote, thus vindicating his argument.
• Haley was a habitual defender who collected three felony convictions. He, however, collected his second offense before his first conviction became final. The prosecutor's error was procedural, not substantive.

Taranto quite accurately summarizes how far Brooks is off:

"Cruz’s successful appeal in Haley tells us nothing about him except that he was a competent solicitor general. His job was to make legal arguments, not moral judgments about crime and punishment or personal ones about particular criminal defendants. If Brooks thinks Haley’s punishment was unjust—and there is nothing to suggest he has an informed view of the matter at all—he can fault the legislators who passed the three-strikes law, the prosecutors who applied (and misapplied) it, and the trial judge who imposed the sentence.

Brooks means to denounce Cruz, not to vindicate Haley. Criticizing politicians, even denouncing them, is part of the job of an opinion columnist. But Brooks’s treatment of this case is either deliberately deceptive or recklessly ignorant. It may raise questions of character, but not Ted Cruz’s."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/brooks-borks-cruz-1452628864

I don't think that Taranto's response is accurate. It looks to me as if Cruz did not win the case, nor did the criminal defendant. The question at bar was whether the actual innocence exception to procedural problems was applicable to non-capital sentencing errors. The Court did not give Cruz the reinstatement of the conviction that he sought. Instead, the Court sent the case back to District Court to address other issues. They, in essence, punted on the big issue -temporarily. I have not had a chance to see what, if anything, has happened with the remand. As for Taranto's suggestion that prosecutorial discretion has no place in appellate law, that is precisely the question that Brooks addresses, and finds (in Brook's opinion) that Cruz failed the test. It is a fair question. Reasonable people, like Cruz and Brooks, can disagree. Brook's position is that Cruz's position is wrong, and his conduct in the case is fair game for questioning his judgment. I can see both sides on the jurisprudential question, but on the moral question I think I take Brook's side. Here is an interesting, though a little dense, take on it: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1152792

 

[El Torito]

I don't think that Taranto's response is accurate. It looks to me as if Cruz did not win the case, nor did the criminal defendant. The question at bar was whether the actual innocence exception to procedural problems was applicable to non-capital sentencing errors. The Court did not give Cruz the reinstatement of the conviction that he sought. Instead, the Court sent the case back to District Court to address other issues. They, in essence, punted on the big issue -temporarily. I have not had a chance to see what, if anything, has happened with the remand. As for Taranto's suggestion that prosecutorial discretion has no place in appellate law, that is precisely the question that Brooks addresses, and finds (in Brook's opinion) that Cruz failed the test. It is a fair question. Reasonable people, like Cruz and Brooks, can disagree. Brook's position is that Cruz's position is wrong, and his conduct in the case is fair game for questioning his judgment. I can see both sides on the jurisprudential question, but on the moral question I think I take Brook's side. Here is an interesting, though a little dense, take on it: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1152792

Taranto acknowledges that the Court deferred on whether the actual-innocence exception to the procedural-default doctrine applies in both capital and non-capital cases. ("A layman’s simplification of the court’s answer to the latter question: Maybe, but not in this case."). The Court vacated and remanded on a completely different issue: did Haley receive ineffective assistance of counsel? On the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Supreme Court noted, "Indeed, the defense attorney chose not to cross-examine the State's witness or to put on any evidence." The State of Texas, presumably through Ted Cruz as lead counsel, conceded that Haley possessed a viable ineffective assistance of counsel defense, as duly noted by the Supreme Court:

Petitioner here conceded at oral argument that respondent has a viable and "significant" ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Tr. of Oral Arg. 18 ("[W]e agree at this point there is a very significant argument of ineffective assistance of counsel"); see also id., at 7 (agreeing "not [to] raise any procedural impediment" to consideration of the merits of respondent's ineffective assistance claim on remand). (I added the italics for emphasis).

If, as Books argues, Ted Cruz held a blind bloodlust for "pagan brutalism," he would never have conceded a single inch of ground to any argument assisting a criminal defendant. He did so because it was the right thing to do.

Perhaps characterizing the Court's decision as a full-throated win for Ted Cruz is charitable, but the Court did vacate the 5th Circuit's judgment against the State of Texas. I'd still consider that a win for Ted Cruz because the Supreme Court vacated a judgment adverse to his client, the State of Texas.

You can read the full Dretke opinion here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7320562506280907381&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Back to the main point, which is "The Brutalism of Ted Cruz." I don't think Brooks has made any case, even in the least, that Ted Cruz could himself have exercised prosecutorial discretion - he was not the trial court prosecutor. Haley first raised an appellate issue in the federal court in 2000, four years before Ted Cruz ever argued it before the Supreme Court.

Bear in mind that, at the trial court, the jury returned the 16 1/2 year sentence. The trial court adopted the sentence. As Taranto noted, "If Brooks thinks Haley’s punishment was unjust—and there is nothing to suggest he has an informed view of the matter at all—he can fault the legislators who passed the three-strikes law, the prosecutors who applied (and misapplied) it, and the trial judge who imposed the sentence.

If Brooks' main argument is that Dretke saga is State's Exhibit No. 1 of Ted Cruz's un-Christian "pagan brutalism" then, as Taranto argues, its a "borking." Ted Cruz defended a jury verdict and trial judge's judgment.

 

[texas_ex2000]

I've never understood the idea of bashing an entire city or state. Obviously, Democrats will carry New York, but why reinforce that needlessly?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ama-tells-Americans-dont-go-to-Las-Vegas.html

 

[UTChE96]

I did think that Cruz had a clever dig at Donald with the "not a lot of conservatives come out of Manhattan" line. I took this entire exchange to be Cruz pulling a Trump on Trump by making irrelevant personal attacks that require the accused to defend themselves and thereby becoming distracted. Trump really has no place to complain or act offended after questioning Cruz' right to run for Presidency and even his devotion to his religion.

 

[Mr. Deez]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ama-tells-Americans-dont-go-to-Las-Vegas.html

What's the comparison?

 

[Hollandtx]

It's funny, I watched the debate, and afterwards all the pundits were talking about "that moment". (9/11) Then, they talked to the focus group (about 25-30 people) and asked them if that statement impacted them. I don't recall one hand being raised, and when prompted, they all brushed it off as a non-issue.
The media has taken this and run, and, whether I like Trump or Cruz, I feel this has been totally blown out of proportion. Cruz, for once, was trying for a bit of levity, and I was a bit squirmy that Trump played the 9/11 card.
New York wasn't alone in being attacked that day, and though it hasn't been through something as shocking and terrible as a deliberate terrorist attack, many cities have been absolutely devastated by tornados and other extreme weather. No, the loss of life was no where near as significant, but in terms of rolling up sleeves, and rebuilding what was lost, I believe comparisons could be made. New York isn't alone in it's ability to recover from a disaster.
I was surprised Cruz walked in to that one.

 

[Joe Fan]

I get why Cruz is trying to attack Trump as a "Northerner". It's funny how for the distant future 9/11 can be used as a trump card (no pun intended) though. Does Washington D.C. get the same treatment?

Trump's response, wrapping himself in 9-11, reminded me of this Family Guy skit - it's pretty great and it's almost like they predicted this moment in the future

 

[texas_ex2000]

What's the comparison?

I posted that as a bit of a joke.

Although Vegas sure didn't like it. And while Obama denied it, or doesn't know he was doing it, he was effectively insulting the entire essence of Vegas.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I posted that as a bit of a joke.

Although Vegas sure didn't like it. And while Obama denied it, or doesn't know he was doing it, he was effectively insulting the entire essence of Vegas.

I don't think he was insulting Vegas. I think he was making the point that it's not smart to spend money frivolously when you're broke. I think most people (even in Vegas) understand his point and after with it. (Unfortunately Obama didn't practice his own lesson.)

Cruz's rip on New York (like frequent Republican characterizations of places like San Francisco, Massachusetts, etc.) was a pretty explicit attack on the values of the actual people of New York. It's more like Obama's idiotic "guns and religion" comment.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The anti-Cruz publicity campaign seems to be in full swing. Now you have staunch conservatives like Orrin Hatch publicly denouncing Cruz. http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/ted-cruz-senate-revolt/index.html

Is Orrin Hatch part of the problem too according to the Tea Party fans? He's one of the most staunchly conservative members in the Senate.

 

[theiioftx]

No Republican will ever win NY and there is a large contingent across the country who hate NY. Cruz comment provided him publicity and moved discussion away from his citizenship. Smart in my view.

I also think the more establishment republicans come out against him, Cruz will gain.

This will be an entertaining election to the finish, but scary. Scary that the American public could be swayed by endorsements from Palin, Phil Robertson, Demi Lovato, Whoopi Goldberg and Chuck Norris. I am considering a move to a deserted island in the Pacific.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I also think the more establishment republicans come out against him, Cruz will gain.

I think Hatch stated as much. Does that help or hurt Cruz' chances of winning?

 

[Mr. Deez]

I think Hatch stated as much. Does that help or hurt Cruz' chances of winning?

In the primary, it helps. In the general it hurts.

 

[zork]

This will be an entertaining election to the finish, but scary. Scary that the American public could be swayed by endorsements from Palin, Phil Robertson, Demi Lovato, Whoopi Goldberg and Chuck Norris. I am considering a move to a deserted island in the Pacific.

These are some interesting times.