Tuesday, October 02, 2012


In what may be a preview of Wednesday night's Obama-Romney scrum, Paul Sadler (R-Lite) and Ted Cruz (R-Batshit) flung poop at each other more furiously than any cage of angry monkeys ever has. Look what Harvey Kronberg wrote.


GOP candidate says Democrat is a liberal, pro-gay marriage, anti-Second Amendment and proud supporter of a Texas personal income tax 

The mission of the two Senate candidate’s in this evening’s Belo debate could not have been more different.

For the underfunded, largely unknown Democrat Paul Sadler the debate was about registering on the Richter scale, marginalizing Ted Cruz as an ideologue and a radical while raising questions that would follow the front runner in the weeks to come.

 For Ted Cruz, the mission was to deliver enough red meat to invigorate the state’s anti-Obama majority that every poll to date suggests is unshakeable in Texas and stay on message enough to keep his activist base engaged.

We have praised the format before – a virtual free for all in which neither one minute sound bites nor never-ending filibusters are tolerated.

The winner of the debate is obviously in the eye of the beholder.

The Texas Tribune was more temperate.

More often, it was Sadler furiously trying to pin down Cruz on a single yes-or-no question such as whether Cruz believed Obama was a Christian or was born in the Untied States. Sadler would repeatedly cut Cruz off mid-sentence if Cruz didn't begin his response with "yes" or "no." Each time, Cruz survived the interrogation without giving Sadler the information that he wanted. (When pressed by reporters afterward, Cruz refused to say his views on Obama’s religion or place of birth and said he was focused on "the issues.")

The exchanges often veered wildly off topic, prompting WFAA news reporter Brad Watson and Dallas Morning News reporter Gromer Jeffers Jr. to push the candidates back on track. Questions on illegal immigration and health care turned into arguments about whether Sadler supports the Second Amendment or whom Cruz planned to back for majority whip in the U.S. Senate. Cruz accused Sadler of “hectoring.” Sadler accused Cruz of “lecturing.”

Here's the final exchange of the hour between the two combatants.

SADLER: I had the responsibility of looking at the tax system of Texas, something you wouldn’t know anything about because you’ve never served in the Legislature, you’ve never had the responsibility of putting together a school finance program to pay for our children’s education, to fund education across this state. I did a review of every single tax available. … That’s our responsibility. You wouldn’t know anything about that. But what you don’t do is do your job as a legislator worried about some troll who will come along 10 years later or 20 years later and try to run a campaign against you.

CRUZ: I’m sorry you believe I’m a troll.

SADLER: When you lie over and over again, there’s nothing else to suggest.

CRUZ: I’m sorry, Mr. Sadler, you believe I’m a troll.

SADLER: I think you lie, Ted.
CRUZ: I’m sorry you attack me personally and impugn my character. I do not intend to reciprocate.

This is just pathetic. I have to believe that if the Libertarian  -- John Jay Myers --  and the Green -- David Collins -- had been included, this wouldn't have gotten so far out of hand.

Texas, and Texans, deserve so much better than this.

But Sadler, faced with the most recent polling that shows him outgunned more than 2-1, had to sling mud like it was hash in a greasy spoon. All Cruz had to do was duck.

Yes, I'm afraid this could be a precursor of what we might expect to see from Mitt Romney tomorrow evening, after all the punishment he has taken from his own side, and in the face of his own collapsed numbers (everywhere except good ol' Texas, of course).

I just don't think I can sit through another display like this one, though.

Update: It's worth noting that Charles Kuffner has a very low opinion of the Texas Lyceum poll linked above, and unwinds that here. I still think Sadler's over/under is 42%.


Greg said...

Why bother with Sadler at all -- it isn't like he is a serious candidate for office.

PDiddie said...

Neither one is a serious candidate for office.

Greg said...

A profoundly intelligent constitutional lawyer isn't a serious candidate? I'm sure you only believe that because Cruz has the audacity to think for himself rather than playing the ethnic grievance game.

PDiddie said...

No Greg, I think that because another profoundly intelligent constitutional lawyer sits in the White House, assassinating US citizens with drone attacks.

Never mind that troubling 'due process' thingie.

But you know what the really scary part is? I'm still certain Barack Obama is EVEN MORE profoundly intelligent than Ted Cruz. And is not a bleeding asshole.

Profound intelligence does not seem connected with good judgment, in other words, and Ted Cruz obviously lacking.

Greg said...

Obama has a profoundly intelligent constitutional scholar on his staff? Who? God knows that the former non-tenure-track senior lecturer doesn't qualify as one.

PDiddie said...

We appear to be close to agreement here, except for the 'Ted Cruz is a mope' part.

Greg said...

That you are endorsing corruption-enabler Vince Ryan for County Attorney ought to tell your readers a lot about your judgement of who is qualified for office.