Ted Cruz was just on Leno.

[AlexAmore]

You can watch some of the clips at the link and/or wait for them to upload the whole show later.

I watched it on TV and my opinion of Ted's performance? 100% pure politician vibe with slick used car salesman undertones. He ignored the questions and just told completely pandering stories about his kids, his father, and totally vague generic fodder about Obama's policies hurting the poor. His last story was so out of left field that Leno wrapped up with an expression like "Oookaaaayy.....".

http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/

[jct74]

looks like this is the whole interview


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qBOAZ0XDRM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qBOAZ0XDRM

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Leno's "if you like your land, you can keep your land" joke was hilarious.

I turned the channel after the Jaywalking segment, and didn't watch Cruz.

[enhanced_deficit]

Speaking of moderate neeocon/Goldman Sachs nT Cruzer, what are Rafael Ted Cruz's and his modetarly neoconish father Rafael Cruz senior's views on controversial Pastor John Hagee and CUFI's racialist armageddon drama in holy land?

[dillo]

I think his answer on gay marriage was pretty good

[AlexAmore]

I think his answer on gay marriage was pretty good

That was about it. Kind of surprising, considering he's been courting the social conservatives in a big way. I remember when Ted and Rand went to Iowa and afterwards all I heard was how Ted blew Rand out of the water with the religious right. Well, looks like there's no difference that I can see. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[Feeding the Abscess]

That was about it. Kind of surprising, considering he's been courting the social conservatives in a big way. I remember when Ted and Rand went to Iowa and afterwards all I heard was how Ted blew Rand out of the water with the religious right. Well, looks like there's no difference that I can see. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Perhaps Cruz gave a different answer to the Iowa group.

[AlexAmore]

Perhaps Cruz gave a different answer to the Iowa group.

That's what I suspect. I think this can bite him later. Clearly he's trying to pander to the center, so that's a signal for a presidential run. The problem for him is he already dug his hole and he needs to bank on an Iowa win. If he's in it to just siphon right-wing Iowan votes from Rand, he made the wrong play. Remember, Santorum won Iowa. You could literally just edit down to his states rights part, put it in a commercial, run it all over Iowa and sink him.

[ChristianAnarchist]

"This video contains content from NBC Universal, who has blocked it on copyright grounds."

That didn't take long... Velcomm to ze neu vorld order...



looks like this is the whole interview


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qBOAZ0XDRM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qBOAZ0XDRM

[FrankRep]

Speaking of moderate neeocon/Goldman Sachs nT Cruzer, what are Rafael Ted Cruz's and his modetarly neoconish father Rafael Cruz senior's views on controversial Pastor John Hagee and CUFI's racialist armageddon drama in holy land?

How is Ted Cruz a Neocon?

[Brian4Liberty]

The most disappointing part about that interview was that Jay Leno has become just another attack dog for the left establishment. He usually doesn't do that, but he was prepped and had an agenda, and was on the attack the entire time.

As for Cruz, he didn't handle it very well. He had a hard time with comebacks and making clear points. And stories about his father and Cuba got old quick.

[TaftFan]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/09/ted-cruz-talks-gay-marriage-gun-control-in-late-night-debut-with-jay-leno/

[Brian4Liberty]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/09/ted-cruz-talks-gay-marriage-gun-control-in-late-night-debut-with-jay-leno/

Very positive spin. Might as well fight propaganda with propaganda!

[FloralScent]

How is Ted Cruz a Neocon?

His repeated veiled threats against Iran.

[enhanced_deficit]

How is Ted Cruz a Neocon?

Frank, please don't twist my words, I called him "moderate neocon".

Ted Cruz's Quick Syria invasion stance:


“We know Assad has used these weapons, and there is good reason to suspect the al Qaida-affiliated rebels would use them as well if they could get their hands on them. This poses an intolerable threat not only to our friends in the region, but also to the United States. We need to be developing a clear, practical plan to go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out. The United States should be firmly in the lead to make sure the job is done right.”- Ted Cruz


Link (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?425453-Change-Only-9-Americans-support-US-military-intervention-in-Syria&p=5196150&viewfull=1&)

[FrankRep]

Frank, please don't twist my words, I called him "moderate neocon".

Ted Cruz's Quick Syria invasion stance:


“We know Assad has used these weapons, and there is good reason to suspect the al Qaida-affiliated rebels would use them as well if they could get their hands on them. This poses an intolerable threat not only to our friends in the region, but also to the United States. We need to be developing a clear, practical plan to go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out. The United States should be firmly in the lead to make sure the job is done right.”- Ted Cruz

Link (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?425453-Change-Only-9-Americans-support-US-military-intervention-in-Syria&p=5196150&viewfull=1&)


That makes him a War Hawk, not a Neocon or what you call a "moderate neocon."

You're misusing the term.

[enhanced_deficit]

That makes him a War Hawk, not a Neocon or what you call a "moderate neocon."

You're misusing the term.

I don't know really what is the difference between "moderate neocon" and "war monger hawk".

Were Dick Cheney, Joe Liebeerman types "war hawks" or "moderate neocons" or plain "neocons" under yout definition?

[FrankRep]

I don't know really what is the difference between "moderate neocon" and "war monger hawk".

Were Dick Cheney, Joe Liebeerman types "war hawks" or "moderate neocons" or plain "neocons" under yout definition?

This article explains in detail what a Neocon is. It's actually a complex philosophy mixing the Warfare/Welfare state, Socialist Trotskyite principles, and globalism.

Check it out:

Defining Terms: What is a Neoconservative (Neocon)? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?257106-Defining-Terms-What-is-a-Neoconservative-%28Neocon%29)


In a sentence:


A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.

--Irving Kristol, the "Godfather of Neoconservatism"

[NIU Students for Liberty]

That makes him a War Hawk, not a Neocon or what you call a "moderate neocon."

You're misusing the term.

"Neocon", "War Hawk", whatever term you want to use to describe him, Cruz still sucks.

[enhanced_deficit]

This article explains in detail what a Neocon is. It's actually a complex philosophy mixing the Warfare/Welfare state, Socialist Trotskyite principles, and globalism.

Check it out:

Defining Terms: What is a Neoconservative (Neocon)? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?257106-Defining-Terms-What-is-a-Neoconservative-%28Neocon%29)


In a sentence:
A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.

--Irving Kristol, the "Godfather of Neoconservatism"


Thank you but natural term that comes to mind for that description is "neo liberal". Help illustrate with some exmples, is Bill Maher a moderate neecon or selective war hawk? What bout John Kerry, Hillary Billary?

What is accurate definition for war monger windbag hero of Ted Cruz ..like John "attack Iran' Hagee?

[FrankRep]

Thank you but natural term that comes to mind for that description is "neo liberal". Help illustrate with some exmples, is Bill Maher a moderate neecon or selective war hawk? What bout John Kerry, Hillary Billary?

What is accurate definition for war monger windbag hero of Ted Cruz ..like John "attack Iran' Hagee?

Bill Maher, John Kerry, and Hillary/Bill Clinton don't pretend to be a Conservative, they're liberal progressives.

People like Bill Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz are Neo-Conservatives.


Wikipedia says this: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism)


Neoconservatism is a political movement born in the 1960s inside the monthly review Commentary, the journal of the American Jewish Committee, which replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. On the "theoretical" side of neoconservatism, most influential neoconservatives such as Norman Podhoretz and his son John, Irving Kristol and his son William, Donald Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, and Abram Schulsky, refer explicitly to the ideas in the philosophy of Leo Strauss. They often describe themselves as "Straussians."
...

Neoconservatism is supportive of the welfare state of the New Deal, but critical of some aspects of the Johnson administration's Great Society programs, offers lukewarm applause for free markets, and advocates "assertive" promotion of democracy and American "national interest" in international affairs including by military means.


Ted Cruz is not a Neo-Conservative.

[Keith and stuff]

How is Ted Cruz a Neocon?

According to his stated views, he cannot be a NeoCon because he is mostly for small government in the US. He is for expanded government overseas, though. But you have to be for expanded government both inside and outside the US to be a NeoCon.

[FrankRep]

According to his stated views, he cannot be a NeoCon because he is mostly for small government in the US. He is for expanded government overseas, though. But you have to be for expanded government both inside and outside the US to be a NeoCon.

Ted Cruz doesn't support the philosophy of Leo Strauss, the welfare state, the New Deal, and he's not a liberal.

Ted Cruz is a bit War Hawkish on Iran, but he's certainly not a Neo-Conservative.

[TaftFan]

I think the modern foreign policy paradigm is too complicated and confusing. I have been a strong proponent of Walter Russell Mead's foreign policy spectrum instead.



Frequently Asked Questions about Walter Russell Meade’s Spectrum
Or
What the Hell is a Jacksonian?

Intro

Walter Russell Meade has postulated an interesting set of definitions for the American political landscape, at least as far as the foreign policy arena goes. Rather than using the traditional left/right, Democratic/Republican models, he’s worked out four schools of “American” foreign policy thought, named after influential American statesmen who epitomize the principles of those schools. In brief, they are:
- Jacksonian
- Hamiltonian
- Jeffersonian
- Wilsonian

All four of these schools of thought have had significant impacts in the larger world. Major international organizations derive from these fundamentally American ideals.

So, what are these schools, and what do they represent?

Jacksonian

The Jacksonian tradition is perhaps the least well-known, and certainly the least understood of the four schools of thought that Meade defines. Jacksonians tend to be looked down upon – despite the fact that by the numbers, they appear to be the largest of the four schools. The driving belief of the Jacksonian school of thought is that the first priority of the U.S. Government in both foreign and domestic policy is the physical security and economic well-being of the American populace. Jacksonians believe that the US shouldn't seek out foreign quarrels, but if a war starts, the basic belief is "there's no substitute for victory" – and Jacksonians will do pretty much whatever is required to make that victory happen. If you wanted a Jacksonian slogan, it's "Don't Tread On Me!" Jacksonians are generally viewed by the rest of the world as having a simplistic, uncomplicated view of the world, despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.
Jacksonians also strongly value self-reliance. "Economic well-being" to a Jacksonian isn’t about protectionist trade barriers. Rather, it is about providing Jacksonians with the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own.
Looking for a Jacksonian President? Ronald Reagan was very much a Jacksonian, as is our current President, George W. Bush.

Hamiltonian
Hamiltonian doctrine is really the doctrine that pushes the economic primacy of the United States. Hamiltonians believe that a fundamental link between the government and big business is key to the survival and success of the country. They are, however, realists who believe that the US is at best primus inter pares among other nations. As a result, they believe that the US is best served by international organizations that protect fundamentally American interests. If you're looking for Hamiltonian legacies, look at things like the IMF, World Bank, NAFTA, and the WTO. Hamiltonians believe that the US should be integrated into the global economy on the most favorable terms possible, and that this above all else drives the success of the American system. Well known Hamiltonians include George H. W. Bush, Henry Cabot Lodge, and Bill Clinton.
One common misconception to be ware of is that Hamiltonian thinkers are essentially identical to the realpolitik-driven upper crust of European society. While the socialization is superficially the same, the results on this side of the Atlantic are quite different. In the common European view, national interest was most often viewed in terms of a military balance of power. In the Anglo-American Hamiltonian view, however, national interest is best served by preventing the rise of a single hostile power able to unify the opposition, while strong expeditionary forces and a similarly-strong international trading environment are used to provide the muscle of the nation's defense.

Jeffersonian
Jeffersonians are most interested in protection of American democracy on the home front, and almost as misunderstood as Jacksonians. They believe that foreign entanglements are a sure method of damaging American democratic systems, and are highly skeptical of Hamiltonian/Wilsonian projects to involve the US abroad. Hamiltonians and Wilsonians have a realistic streak, that the United States is fundamentally a state among states, if better managed. Jeffersonians, in contrast, believe that the United States is something better and different. You often find Jeffersonians protesting against* international agreements, rather than for them.
If you had to look for a fundamentally Jeffersonian institution, look no further than the ACLU. For a Jeffersonian, an organization like that stands on the front lines of the battle to protect American democracy. There really aren't any Jeffersonian presidents in the 20th century. The Libertarian Party, however, is a fundamentally Jeffersonian organization.

Wilsonian
Wilsonians believe that both the moral and national interests of the United States are best served by spreading American democratic and social values throughout the world. They want to see the U.S. involved on a worldwide basis with a peaceful international community based on the rule of law. Want a Wilsonian organization? Look no further than the United Nations, perhaps the *quintessentially Wilsonian creation.
An interesting point to note is that Wilsonian values are a fundamentally American conceit, yet they have been adopted wholeheartedly by many of the ruling political organizations in Europe, especially by those most passionately interested in furthering the European Union.
Wilsonian tendencies have run through American foreign policy thought since long before Woodrow Wilson took office. The tens of thousands of missionaries sent abroad from the US in the 19th century, for example, are an exemplar of Wilsonian thinking. American Presidents have often been guided by Wilsonian thought, too. Jimmy Carter was obviously a Wilsonian. But so was McKinley when he used missionary thinking to justify annexing the Philippines. Wilsonian views are also widely held in Great Britain, where the new version of the Labor Party and it's head, Tony Blair, exemplify Wilsonian thinking.



MORE: http://denbeste.nu/external/Mead01.html