Here’s the deal, guys, Marco Rubio repeated a sentence during the New Hampshire debate, but his despicable behavior didn’t start there. In 2013 – while giving a State of The Union response – the parched politician awkwardly grabbed a bottle of water. Rubio is also known to suffer from bouts of nervous sweating while engaging in public speaking where millions of viewers are watching, leading us to believe the devastating truth: he might be human.
We have to face these issues, and while I once supported the Florida Senator, I no longer can. Awkwardly reaching for H2o is simply not a forgivable act, and repeating a sentence simply drove the last nail into that Dasani flogged coffin. We should expect more from our politicians, it’s that simple. Our commander-in-chief needs to have the wherewithal to face the nation without needing to quench his thirst for life-sustaining liquid.
As an example of what we should look for in a presidential candidate, let’s look at the actions of Ted Cruz thus far on the campaign trail, compared to those of Marco Rubio.
First up, let’s talk about his campaign phone app. I mean sure, the Cruz Crew app might be antithetical to his supposed support of protecting the privacy rights of law-abiding citizens…
His “Cruz Crew” mobile app is designed to gather detailed information from its users’ phones — tracking their physical movements and mining the names and contact information for friends who might want nothing to do with his campaign.
But let me ask you a question: Has Ted Cruz ever entered into a situation under-hydrated? No. I didn’t think so.
And sure, Cruz blatantly misled his followers about Marco Rubio’s position on same-sex marriage, and behaved like a dictator-light by pretending as though he can overrule a SCOTUS ruling and disregard all branches of government, replacing it with the power in his mighty scepter…
Even though both oppose gay marriage, each said they would abide by the “law of the land” last year.
“Those are the talking points of Barack Obama,” Cruz said.
The Supreme Court decision, he added, “will not stand.”
But has he ever, to the best of your recollection, repeated the same sentence within a two minute span?
No. No, he hasn’t.*
I suppose you might say that it was wrong for the Cruz campaign to engage in fear tactics with “Voting Violation” mailers, and threats of informing neighbors of a voter’s lack of participation in an election.
The reaction on Twitter was swift, and largely negative. Many viewed the mailer as a privacy violation. As the mailer notes, the information on it was pulled from public records, and that is legal, but printing the names and voter records like that, along with the implication that the neighbors are seeing the same information, is unsettling to some. The Iowa Supervisor of Elections does not actually assign voter grades like this mailer implies.
You might even say that it was a tacky, deplorable, and very liberal tactic. And you’re right, but I counter your facts with another question: Would you rather have your Grandmother terrified and embarrassed because upon receiving a piece of political mail she became convinced that she was committing a voting violation and believed she’d be shamed by a presidential candidate if she didn’t go vote, or have someone awkwardly reach for a micro-bottle of water on live TV?
Is a minor panic attack really all that harmful to Grandma? That’s all I’m sayin’.
Just face it, the under-hydrated are clearly more nefarious than the underhanded. Sure, the ridiculous Ted Cruz mailers didn’t stop there, but continued on with the most recent tactless mailer from the Cruz campaign claiming there was a “check enclosed.”
MANCHESTER, N.H. — Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is out with a deceptive new mailer that masquerades as official government business and promises people there’s a “check enclosed” when it’s actually asking for money instead.
However, has Ted ever sweat in public? Probably, but was it scrutinized to no end?
I rest my case.
I know what you’re thinking, “But, Marybeth, Ted Cruz can’t answer a simple question about his immigration stance, a question that Democrats will annihilate him with if he makes it onto the general ticket!” Well, Marco Rubio may have answered that same question like someone running for president should, but he also has overactive sweat glands. So don’t talk to me about facts unless you’re prepared to accept the ridiculous and unnecessary details about Marco that have absolutely nothing to do with how he’ll lead our country.
“But what about Cruz’s defense of a Mike Bickle, Marybeth?”
In a sermon in 2011, Bickle said God would give Jews a chance to convert to Christianity and “raise up the hunters” against those who refuse. Bickle called Hitler “the most famous hunter in recent history.” In 2005, Bickle said in a sermon that before Jesus’ coming, “a significant number of Jews will be in work camps, prison camps or death camps.”
But Bickle’s remarks have earned the ire of the Anti-Defamation League, which told the Times of Israel that “Mike Bickle’s views about why God allowed Jews to be killed in the Holocaust, as expressed in a 2011 speech, are abhorrent, intolerant and unacceptable. We assume that Senator Cruz accepted Bickle’s endorsement without knowing about these comments. We hope that when these comments are called to the Senator’s attention, he will clearly and forcefully reject Bickle’s hateful ideas.”
So he defends a guy who thinks God sent Hitler, I don’t see what the big deal is. On the other hand, Marco Rubio repeated a sentence at the New Hampshire debate, so don’t talk to me about the faults of other candidates while dismissing Marco’s repetitive speech.
So Heidi Cruz went fully Tammy Faye saying that Ted will “show this country the face of the God that we serve,” and Ted’s father might be insane, who cares?
In a sermon last year at an Irving, Texas, megachurch that helped elect Ted Cruz to the United States Senate, Cruz’ father Rafael Cruz indicated that his son was among the evangelical Christians who are anointed as “kings” to take control of all sectors of society, an agenda commonly referred to as the “Seven Mountains” mandate, and “bring the spoils of war to the priests”, thus helping to bring about a prophesied “great transfer of wealth”, from the “wicked” to righteous gentile believers.
Sure, I’m a proud Christian who finds all of this disturbing. And sure, sometimes he creeps me out to no end. And of course, I’m well aware that Democrats will use all of this against him, which will just lead to a devastating loss in November should he be the nominee. And yes, maybe the scent of Dominionism and Theocracy is so thick and terrifying that I had to take my inhaler. However, this is the alternative:
The nerve of some thirsty candidates is astounding.
Yes, I might see the irony in Ted Cruz thinking he had to pull an ad attacking Marco’s principles – with lines like, “Maybe you should vote for more than just a pretty face next time.” – because they accidentally used a porn star in the commercial. And sure, I find it even funnier that the actress is allegedly still undecided as to who to support between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Maybe I find it a little revolting that they pulled the ad even though maybe she was seeking a better life, and maybe it was a little bit messed that Cruz didn’t use this opportunity to instead focus on a message of redemption. Maybe that’s all true, but the real question we should be asking is if we can tolerate a president with an uncontrollable thirst for water and a glistening forehead? I mean, we’re talking about the leader of the free world here, not a Fanta spokesman.
The person we choose is going to be leading our military, can we tolerate that person drinking water and perspiring while making difficult decisions? Can we handle someone who might say, “ISIS is bad” three consecutive times?
The answer is simple: No, we can’t.
We should instead pick the guy who said that Marco Rubio “advocates amnesty for criminals who are here illegally,” even though Rubio has – from day one – supported deporting felons, as well as barring legal status to those with multiple misdemeanors.
Yes, yes, Cruz has frequently made the statement that “Border security is national security, and you know, one of the most troubling aspects of the Rubio-Schumer Gang of Eight bill was that it gave President Obama blanket authority to admit refugees, including Syrian refugees, without mandating any background checks whatsoever,” despite the fact that it’s been debunked.
By pretty much everyone who drives a vehicle without a Cruz bumper sticker.
The failed 2013 bill did not change the number of refugees, the overall framework of the screening process or give the president authority to admit any group at will. It would have allowed the president to designate certain groups outside the United States as particularly at risk, and other officials to label certain refugees in the United States as having nowhere to go. It further would have repealed the deadline for refugees already here to apply for asylum.
Experts said none of the provisions Cruz has previously cited work the way he is warning they would.
But, lying and demonizing the opposition so as to manipulate you for your vote isn’t all that bad though, right? I mean, we have to overlook such massive – would be – character eviscerating short comings when faced with this monster being the alternative option:
Give me a guy who doesn’t know the definition of “carpet bombing” over a guy who appreciates a chilled glass of tap water any day. At least the guy who thinks “carpet bombing” includes targeting specific infrastructures and “making the sand glow” isn’t going to be continually interrupting briefings to request a glass of aqua.
Of course I won’t go into listing Cruz’s minor issues; petty issues such as emails that say, “Ted Cruz Personal Email – May Include Privileged Communication,” because they think we’re all mouth-breathers who will pull out our debit cards if we feel important enough, or the fact that I feel like a bystander watching the masses gather around a drunk peddler who promises to cure all of their ails with a magic elixir made from unicorn droppings and the fur of a centaur. No, I’ll skip over all of that because I need to save this country from a guy who sweats more than normal. My country needs me, and according to my most recent Tea Party email, I’m a Two Star General in the Patriot Brigade, so I’m kind of a big deal.
Okay… Let’s go back to the world of sanity.
I often have people tell me that Ted Cruz is anti-establishment, and Marco Rubio is THE establishment. They say it like Rubio has been crowned king of the GOPe, and Ted Cruz is knocking on the walls of his fortress with tar and feathers, fully prepared to end the reign of the establishment ilks. If you ask Cruz, I’m sure he’d describe it more like a Jericho scenario; he’s marching around the walls once every day for six primaries – priests and the Ark of the Covenant in hand – and on the seventh primary, he’ll walk around that establishment lair seven times, and it is at that point – as the results are called – the priests will blow their ram’s horns, the Tea Party will give a great shout, and the establishment shall tumble.
Actually, those running around pinning “Establishment” labels on everyone but themselves have become the real establishment. They decide when we can hold a candidate such as Cruz responsible, they decide which candidates we are to support in order to keep our “conservative” credentials. They dictate what we can say about whom, and when we can say it. They are spoon-fed their information from the talking heads in conservative media, and they are the ones who made Rubio repeating a sentence into what they labeled a campaign destroying nightmare while they continuously carry water for Cruz.
These are the people who let Cruz prance around using divisive tactics, blatant lies, and disturbing viewpoints, yet proclaim that Rubio’s campaign is on the ropes because he repeated himself.
Don’t worry, if Cruz makes it to the general I’ll cast my completely useless vote for him after he’s been battered, bruised, and properly vetted by the Democrat Party after we failed to do the job in the first place. However, if you expect me to praise the god of the new establishment, there’s a list of things I’d rather suffer through – three of which are against the Geneva Convention.
*I did not go back and listen to Cruz’s entire library of impassioned speeches to fact check my statement on his lack of repetitive language; that’s partly because I have a life, but mostly because I’d like to retain my sanity. I might be awarded like 80 Pinocchios, I honestly have no idea.