"Optics my foot. Send all the politicians to Cancun and the situation would probably get fixed faster anyway."
We have here a perfect example of what Rush used to call ":symbolism over substance." When I heard about this, I knew Ted Cruz had done the wrong thing, but based ONLY on the appearances of it, not because he could have gotten Texans' power and water service back on sooner. His REAL sin is giving the enviro radicals something with which they can try to bamboozle Americans into supporting a project which, if brought to fruition, will inevitably lad to more Texases and Californias, complete with rolling blackouts. We're already seeing the effects of this here in Indiana; prices at the pump have shot up almost 50 cents/gallon since Inauguration Day, as the markets price in the long term effects of the Keystone XL cancellation, with, I'm sure, more to come.
The whiners will have plenty to complain about in days to come, although I doubt they will be able to realize that put 2+2=Joe Biden as regards energy prices. That's probably why they keep insisting that getting the precise answer in mathematics is somehow evidence of "white supremacist" thinking.
1. Cruz has a leadership position, so it is not just “optics” (which are also part of the game). It is about commitment to his cause, or not. IF committed then he should lead: a captain goes down with his ship. If not, then everything he does is just optics.
2. I thought Texas, add opposed to California, was Republican. Am I wrong? Would like to understand what you mean by “more Texases”
As a precinct chair, I reached out to voters in my precinct to see if everything was okay. As a Christian, I reached out to members of my Sunday School class for the same reason. As an election judge, I reached out to everyone who had worked with me in the past year. We all came up with ways to help each other in this time of crisis if needed.
I just wonder. If the home of Senator Cruz has a fireplace.
The fact that people are defending this is AMAZING to me! Forget optics, this shows a poor judgement and leadership. Making excuses for this. Not to mention how often he has changed the story. Ted Cruz gets what he deserves for all of his righteous indignation shown towards others. If a Democrat senator had done this everyone’s opinion would be totally different. Y’all sound crazy.
I have no problem with the senator going some place warm. Its also great to be able to comment now that i paid a 1 year subscription to a man who i enjoy listening to.
As explained by numerous people in this post: he has the power of influence... the biggest power in current society.
People listen to him, he can call governors and they would pick up the phone, he can call CEOs. He can lead by example. I can keep going on, but it has been already stated by many above.
As I read these comments I wonder if only Democrat elected officials are allowed to take vacations. Most of the time, vacations are planned well in advance. And with COVID they are even more planned out. Bad optics, of course, but I'm not seeing anyone complaining about the bad optics of so many other politicians during not just bad times, but normal times.
So you wake up in your apartment in the middle of the night to take a leak. On the way back to the bed you notice smoke coming under your front door. You open the door and realize that there is a big fire down the hall. So you crawl to the fire stairs and get out. By the time you exit the entire building in engulfed in flames. You call the fire department. While waiting you see no one else coming out of the building and realize that all your neighbors are now dead. Do you a) leave a note saying you ran back in to die with your neighbors thinking that the whiners on Twitter might trash your reputation and cancel you if you don't also die or b) get on your knees, thank God for your life and pray for the souls of the deceased?
So much of the defense of Cruz seems to rely on the notion that it's a virtue to avoid empty, performative gestures, and that Cruz is aware and observant of this virtue.
You don't have to dislike Cruz to admit that this is laughably false.
No derangement syndrome prevents an observer from noting Cruz' past participation in performative gestures and optics. He's also frequently offered to undertake services outside of his job description when it suited his optics, which is the other large portion of his defense here.
Ted Cruz is a wealthy man with political influence and a media platform who wants to be President of the United States. He could do more, and his aspirations dictate that he should do more.
His defenders put up straw men about serving soup to the homeless or burning his own house down, as it if was the responsibility of his critics to provide better examples of what he could be doing. He's the one who wants to be President. It's incumbent on him to figure out what he could do with his influence, clout, media platform and wealth to help people and show us what leadership looks like.
Or, he could certainly just "not be able to do anything" and skip town for a few days.
At my job, we just had our performance reviews for 2020. Rough year for the business and rough year for everyone, but we're being graded nonetheless. The people who just showed up and did their jobs got a C, and will probably be safe. The people who pushed a little more got a B. The people who pushed a lot more, took risks, and showed innovation, courage and leadership - often by working around their own constraints - got the As.
Guess who will be considered first for raises and promotions.
Erick, you need to add more "context" to your missive. Please consider adding words like "petulant," "angry," "miserable," "immature," "infantile," "childish" or any other adjective you feel appropriate to the term "whiner."
I agree with most of what you said. Just one question: Is it true that he has criticized politicians in the past who take vacation in the middle of crisis? If that is true, then, he lost my whole sympathy for not being consistent. That is called "Lack of Integrity"!
Aside from that, even if he has not real 'role' to play on the practical side of the equation as you describe, you can argue that he is still a public servant, and he should stay and do whatever he can to help. He has a leadership position and influence. He certainly can do a lot more to move the 'powers that be', and to get those that have power, influence, and money, to do more for 'the people'. At the end, 'the people' are the ultimate tax payers, and the ultimate voters.
The line of Cruz defense that demands that his critics list some examples of what he could do is a red herring. Cruz' aspirations are as plain as the beard on his face and it is incumbent upon him to figure out how to use his considerable influence to make things happen. He could even make things happen in a way that doesn't attract attention to himself, to avoid those nasty "optics".
Because we all know how much Ted Cruz seeks to avoid high-profile performative gestures.
Amen, you are so right on. Did Pelosi get this much coverage when she got a hair cut at a closed salon with no mask? How about Newsome eating out at a restaurant while the rest of his state is locked down. Or even Cuomo killing thousands of people. I could go on and on. Apparently hypocrisy is the new norm.
1. she got a lot of coverage for doing that. More importantly: 2. Who cares if she did or did not?
What are we arguing here? Are we defending him from the Media? Or are we having a serious dialog questioning whether his actions where right or wrong?
Who cares about what the media says, or whether they are hypocritical. Besides the point. Are we justifying bad action on the guy we like, because the media did not attack the guys we dislike?? Really?
Caught red handed. Yes, I have a distain for most politicians on the left and their media. Ted Cruz has ever right to be a dad to his children and Pelosi has every right to get a hair cut and Newsome to eat out in a restaurant. What the old saying "if you live in a glass house........."
Mmmm he is a public servant. While he has every right to be a dad, he has a sworn duty to his constituents. He can always resign and be a dad... just like a doctor, a soldier, or a priest, duty comes first. You are always free not to take upon that duty.
Seriously? You think he should have to resign to be a dad?
This nation is literally filled with parents who put their jobs before their children. I find that very sad, not at all praiseworthy.
The responsibility of a Senator is to legislate, to protect Constitutional rights, to read and understand proposed legislation and its effect on the citizens and vote accordingly. Not to “fundraise”, not to be a community organizer, or waste resources on security so he can volunteer at a shelter.
No one, not a doctor, a soldier, a politician, should have to “resign” their job if they want to “be a dad”, or a mother, to their children. (If they’re a priest, they probably shouldn’t have children to start with... you know, the whole celibacy thingy?).
Ted Cruz could get voted out of the Senate next election, but he will be father to his children for the rest of his life. That’s as it should be...he’s their daddy...not yours, certainly not mine.
Actually, I don't think you have to resign. It is about having the ability of either being able to do both things well, or making a decision that you can't. But the people you work for have no reason to suffer because you can't make that decision. AND you have to live with the consequences of the decisions you make.
Simple 'extreme' example: You are a heart surgeon, you are in the airport about to board a plane to take a vacation. Your patient that is in ICU recovering from surgery you performed that morning, goes south, and your skill is necessary to recover. What do you do?
If you are willing to let that patient die because a vacation is more important, I don't want you as my doctor (and I would argue, you should not be that kind of doctor, there are other specialties where you wouldn't face those kinds of decisions).
Same thing, you are a US Senator. You are a leader to your people. It is not about whether it is your job description or not. The expectations of the office you hold are high. You even want to be President. Simple... are you willing to do what it takes, or not? If not, leave the position open for someone else that wants to do it.
Jobs have requirements, and benefits. They both come together. You want the prestige, the salary, the personal growth, etc..? You need to be willing to do what it takes.
My wife decided to leave her job to take care of our children for nearly 15 years. Went back to work when we (she really) felt that our children were ready for that. I supported that 100%. Had she not done that, she would likely have a significant better position, and be making 5 times more money today, and we all would've had a more comfortable financial position all along. Of course, maybe other challenges would've presented themselves at home. But sacrifices where made, to take care of what we considered a priority. Decisions....
My dad was in the military. We have always been very proud of his 45+ year career. Was it easy for his family? Nop... But he was 100%+ committed to his duty, my mom supported him all along, and in consequence we all did. Do you want to hear how many vacations he left us behind because we was called back? How many graduations he missed? Hey heck, he was not around the day I was born. Do I think I was not taken care for because of that? Do I think he loved my less than the duty he sworn? Nop... I am proud of those memories. They developed a strong sense of duty, strong job ethics, and also gave me parameters to decide what I wanted to do with my life (I did not go into the military...)
Sorry, I know it might sound harsh. While I follow and respect your logic, he made a decision to hold one of the most important jobs a citizen can have. Either you live up to it, or do something else.
And anyone that only does what their job description says, likely won't go very far....
Maybe he could have raised money for Texas relief (as AOC did, $1M while Ted was fleeing), or led an effort to check on the status of seniors (as Beto did). He had options that didn’t occur to him. Not surprising. Ted is a political mess.
Erick, thank you for having integrity, and be willing to give light to opinions that disagree with yours! You give me hope!
By sharing this:
https://ewerickson.substack.com/p/a-fair-rejoinder-on-ted-cruz?r=4813i&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=copy
You showed courage and fairness. You don’t have to agree, but you have the courage to share a balanced view.
That is what most other commentators, on both sides, do not have. And that it’s the core of our current challenges and division.
Thank you! Keep it up.
You nailed it, Erick, with this line:
"Optics my foot. Send all the politicians to Cancun and the situation would probably get fixed faster anyway."
We have here a perfect example of what Rush used to call ":symbolism over substance." When I heard about this, I knew Ted Cruz had done the wrong thing, but based ONLY on the appearances of it, not because he could have gotten Texans' power and water service back on sooner. His REAL sin is giving the enviro radicals something with which they can try to bamboozle Americans into supporting a project which, if brought to fruition, will inevitably lad to more Texases and Californias, complete with rolling blackouts. We're already seeing the effects of this here in Indiana; prices at the pump have shot up almost 50 cents/gallon since Inauguration Day, as the markets price in the long term effects of the Keystone XL cancellation, with, I'm sure, more to come.
The whiners will have plenty to complain about in days to come, although I doubt they will be able to realize that put 2+2=Joe Biden as regards energy prices. That's probably why they keep insisting that getting the precise answer in mathematics is somehow evidence of "white supremacist" thinking.
Not sure I agree... one thought and one question:
1. Cruz has a leadership position, so it is not just “optics” (which are also part of the game). It is about commitment to his cause, or not. IF committed then he should lead: a captain goes down with his ship. If not, then everything he does is just optics.
2. I thought Texas, add opposed to California, was Republican. Am I wrong? Would like to understand what you mean by “more Texases”
As a precinct chair, I reached out to voters in my precinct to see if everything was okay. As a Christian, I reached out to members of my Sunday School class for the same reason. As an election judge, I reached out to everyone who had worked with me in the past year. We all came up with ways to help each other in this time of crisis if needed.
I just wonder. If the home of Senator Cruz has a fireplace.
.
The fact that people are defending this is AMAZING to me! Forget optics, this shows a poor judgement and leadership. Making excuses for this. Not to mention how often he has changed the story. Ted Cruz gets what he deserves for all of his righteous indignation shown towards others. If a Democrat senator had done this everyone’s opinion would be totally different. Y’all sound crazy.
I agree he screwed up, but a Dem does this and you hardly hear about it
Or complete lack thereof!
I have no problem with the senator going some place warm. Its also great to be able to comment now that i paid a 1 year subscription to a man who i enjoy listening to.
I have a problem with the Senator not using his power to help his people...
What power does he have to do anything? Focusing on him takes the focus off the politicians who have the power to do something.
As explained by numerous people in this post: he has the power of influence... the biggest power in current society.
People listen to him, he can call governors and they would pick up the phone, he can call CEOs. He can lead by example. I can keep going on, but it has been already stated by many above.
I agree, but he can do that from the beach. If I lived in Texas, lost power, and had the ability to fly somewhere to stay warm then I would.
Agree... Did he? If he did, he made a mistake of not figuring out how to show his 'digital presence' from afar.
PS: as much as I hate it, in his position 'optics' are everything.... So a consideration to be taken for that (not that I agree, but it is reality).
"show his 'digital presence' from afar"...you mean optics?
As I read these comments I wonder if only Democrat elected officials are allowed to take vacations. Most of the time, vacations are planned well in advance. And with COVID they are even more planned out. Bad optics, of course, but I'm not seeing anyone complaining about the bad optics of so many other politicians during not just bad times, but normal times.
So you wake up in your apartment in the middle of the night to take a leak. On the way back to the bed you notice smoke coming under your front door. You open the door and realize that there is a big fire down the hall. So you crawl to the fire stairs and get out. By the time you exit the entire building in engulfed in flames. You call the fire department. While waiting you see no one else coming out of the building and realize that all your neighbors are now dead. Do you a) leave a note saying you ran back in to die with your neighbors thinking that the whiners on Twitter might trash your reputation and cancel you if you don't also die or b) get on your knees, thank God for your life and pray for the souls of the deceased?
So much of the defense of Cruz seems to rely on the notion that it's a virtue to avoid empty, performative gestures, and that Cruz is aware and observant of this virtue.
You don't have to dislike Cruz to admit that this is laughably false.
I wouldn't say it is a virtue; I would call it a nothingburger and to move on (unless, of course, one suffers from CDS, akin to TDS ;-) )
No derangement syndrome prevents an observer from noting Cruz' past participation in performative gestures and optics. He's also frequently offered to undertake services outside of his job description when it suited his optics, which is the other large portion of his defense here.
Thank you for sharing your Texas friend's perspective. That that wasn't your initial impression saddens me.
Ted Cruz is a wealthy man with political influence and a media platform who wants to be President of the United States. He could do more, and his aspirations dictate that he should do more.
His defenders put up straw men about serving soup to the homeless or burning his own house down, as it if was the responsibility of his critics to provide better examples of what he could be doing. He's the one who wants to be President. It's incumbent on him to figure out what he could do with his influence, clout, media platform and wealth to help people and show us what leadership looks like.
Or, he could certainly just "not be able to do anything" and skip town for a few days.
At my job, we just had our performance reviews for 2020. Rough year for the business and rough year for everyone, but we're being graded nonetheless. The people who just showed up and did their jobs got a C, and will probably be safe. The people who pushed a little more got a B. The people who pushed a lot more, took risks, and showed innovation, courage and leadership - often by working around their own constraints - got the As.
Guess who will be considered first for raises and promotions.
Erick, you need to add more "context" to your missive. Please consider adding words like "petulant," "angry," "miserable," "immature," "infantile," "childish" or any other adjective you feel appropriate to the term "whiner."
Spot on commentary!
My understanding is he flew the family down there and came back the next day.....is that true?
I agree with most of what you said. Just one question: Is it true that he has criticized politicians in the past who take vacation in the middle of crisis? If that is true, then, he lost my whole sympathy for not being consistent. That is called "Lack of Integrity"!
Aside from that, even if he has not real 'role' to play on the practical side of the equation as you describe, you can argue that he is still a public servant, and he should stay and do whatever he can to help. He has a leadership position and influence. He certainly can do a lot more to move the 'powers that be', and to get those that have power, influence, and money, to do more for 'the people'. At the end, 'the people' are the ultimate tax payers, and the ultimate voters.
The line of Cruz defense that demands that his critics list some examples of what he could do is a red herring. Cruz' aspirations are as plain as the beard on his face and it is incumbent upon him to figure out how to use his considerable influence to make things happen. He could even make things happen in a way that doesn't attract attention to himself, to avoid those nasty "optics".
Because we all know how much Ted Cruz seeks to avoid high-profile performative gestures.
Amen, you are so right on. Did Pelosi get this much coverage when she got a hair cut at a closed salon with no mask? How about Newsome eating out at a restaurant while the rest of his state is locked down. Or even Cuomo killing thousands of people. I could go on and on. Apparently hypocrisy is the new norm.
If our best defense is whataboutism, we're in trouble.
Agree
you are right
1. she got a lot of coverage for doing that. More importantly: 2. Who cares if she did or did not?
What are we arguing here? Are we defending him from the Media? Or are we having a serious dialog questioning whether his actions where right or wrong?
Who cares about what the media says, or whether they are hypocritical. Besides the point. Are we justifying bad action on the guy we like, because the media did not attack the guys we dislike?? Really?
Caught red handed. Yes, I have a distain for most politicians on the left and their media. Ted Cruz has ever right to be a dad to his children and Pelosi has every right to get a hair cut and Newsome to eat out in a restaurant. What the old saying "if you live in a glass house........."
Mmmm he is a public servant. While he has every right to be a dad, he has a sworn duty to his constituents. He can always resign and be a dad... just like a doctor, a soldier, or a priest, duty comes first. You are always free not to take upon that duty.
Seriously? You think he should have to resign to be a dad?
This nation is literally filled with parents who put their jobs before their children. I find that very sad, not at all praiseworthy.
The responsibility of a Senator is to legislate, to protect Constitutional rights, to read and understand proposed legislation and its effect on the citizens and vote accordingly. Not to “fundraise”, not to be a community organizer, or waste resources on security so he can volunteer at a shelter.
No one, not a doctor, a soldier, a politician, should have to “resign” their job if they want to “be a dad”, or a mother, to their children. (If they’re a priest, they probably shouldn’t have children to start with... you know, the whole celibacy thingy?).
Ted Cruz could get voted out of the Senate next election, but he will be father to his children for the rest of his life. That’s as it should be...he’s their daddy...not yours, certainly not mine.
Actually, I don't think you have to resign. It is about having the ability of either being able to do both things well, or making a decision that you can't. But the people you work for have no reason to suffer because you can't make that decision. AND you have to live with the consequences of the decisions you make.
Simple 'extreme' example: You are a heart surgeon, you are in the airport about to board a plane to take a vacation. Your patient that is in ICU recovering from surgery you performed that morning, goes south, and your skill is necessary to recover. What do you do?
If you are willing to let that patient die because a vacation is more important, I don't want you as my doctor (and I would argue, you should not be that kind of doctor, there are other specialties where you wouldn't face those kinds of decisions).
Same thing, you are a US Senator. You are a leader to your people. It is not about whether it is your job description or not. The expectations of the office you hold are high. You even want to be President. Simple... are you willing to do what it takes, or not? If not, leave the position open for someone else that wants to do it.
Jobs have requirements, and benefits. They both come together. You want the prestige, the salary, the personal growth, etc..? You need to be willing to do what it takes.
My wife decided to leave her job to take care of our children for nearly 15 years. Went back to work when we (she really) felt that our children were ready for that. I supported that 100%. Had she not done that, she would likely have a significant better position, and be making 5 times more money today, and we all would've had a more comfortable financial position all along. Of course, maybe other challenges would've presented themselves at home. But sacrifices where made, to take care of what we considered a priority. Decisions....
My dad was in the military. We have always been very proud of his 45+ year career. Was it easy for his family? Nop... But he was 100%+ committed to his duty, my mom supported him all along, and in consequence we all did. Do you want to hear how many vacations he left us behind because we was called back? How many graduations he missed? Hey heck, he was not around the day I was born. Do I think I was not taken care for because of that? Do I think he loved my less than the duty he sworn? Nop... I am proud of those memories. They developed a strong sense of duty, strong job ethics, and also gave me parameters to decide what I wanted to do with my life (I did not go into the military...)
Sorry, I know it might sound harsh. While I follow and respect your logic, he made a decision to hold one of the most important jobs a citizen can have. Either you live up to it, or do something else.
And anyone that only does what their job description says, likely won't go very far....
Maybe he could have raised money for Texas relief (as AOC did, $1M while Ted was fleeing), or led an effort to check on the status of seniors (as Beto did). He had options that didn’t occur to him. Not surprising. Ted is a political mess.