The Ted Cruz Show (Coward)

Via Associated Press:

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz says he waited until January to begin criticizing Republican rival Donald Trump because he didn’t want to become “roadkill” like other candidates who had challenged the front-runner.

Cruz made the comment Wednesday during a forum hosted by a conservative talk radio host near Milwaukee. It marked Cruz’s first campaign stop in Wisconsin, which holds its primary April 5.

Cruz was asked about a previous statement he made calling Trump “terrific.” Cruz responded by noting that his campaign has had a plan since launching a year ago, and said he needed to build his base of support first and get his record out before drawing contrasts with Trump.

Coward.

You know, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it’s not cowardice. Maybe it’s what we call, “Texas courage”.

This is the guy who wants us to “trusTed”.

Which, in turn, begs a simple question: Why not?

____________________

Image note: Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, in detail of photo by Getty Images, 2016.

Associated Press. “The Latest: Cruz says he didn’t want to be Trump ‘roadkill'”. 23 March 2016.

Savage, Dan. “Ted Cruz’s Secret Longings”. Slog. 5 February 2016.

Your Liberal Media Conspiracy (Walker’s Bone Mix)

Wow.

So, you know, many who consider themselves Republican or try to convince you that they are “independent” will occasionally complain about the evil liberal media conspiracy by which apparently the conservative-tending owners of newspapers and other media outlets are all conspiring to force their reporters to write left-wing propaganda. The specifics will vary, but the general theme holds: If the news cycle is against Republicans in any way, it’s a conspiracy.

And it is indeed one of those alleged bastions of pernicious liberalism that brings us today’s liberal media conspiracy offense.

The conspirator’s name is Alan Rappeport, and he writes for The New York Times.

You might remember yesterday’s strange tale of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) traveling to London and gobsmacking a host while speaking to Chatham House, a royally-endorsed foreign policy wonkbox. The gist of the story, of course, is that when presented with a question about the theory of evolution, Walker chose to punt and counterintuitively claim it an issue politicians are supposed to stay out of.

There are, of course, any number of angles to this. Republicans in London are a dangerous idea. When did evolution become something politicians punt on? Do conservatives recognize that our international neighbors think we’re absolutely weird about this? What are the implications of our political system being subject to such delusional litmus tests that Republicans are absolutely quaking in their boots at the thought of acknowledging science?

Enter The New York Times, who thought Mr. Rappeport would best serve their First Draft blog, intended to bring us breaking news, by rehashing and reframing Mr. Walker’s embarrassing gaffe under the headline, “Walker Steps Back From Evolution ‘Punt'”.

As we noted yesterday, in (ahem!) “stepping back” from his comments, the Wisconsin Republican was still too frightened to say the word “evolution”; his “step back” is, essentially speaking, is to stand in one place and whine like a petulant, untrained puppy.

And the liberal media conspiracy? The New York Times, an alleged chief conspirator? Why wouldn’t it rehash and reframe a story, bringing us exactly nothing new, in order to throw Scott Walker a bone? You know, because that sounds exactly like what a liberal media conspiracy would do.

Mr. Rappeport’s “First Draft” needs some work.

____________________

Rappeport, Alan. “Walker Steps Back From Evolution ‘Punt'”. First Draft. 11 February 2015.