Ted Cruz: Not All Heroes Wear Capes. But None Wear RompHims.

Just yesterday, the Internet briefly united behind a fantastic new meme.  The Washington Free Beacon shared the picture of a straight-laced & suited Tom Cotton, a coffee-holding & peace-sign-giving Chuck Schumer, and a gym-clothes-clad Ben Sasse hanging out on the Hill along with the caption “Caption Contest”, and the responses were truly a glorious sight to behold, uniting the Twitterverse in some much-needed glee near the end of one of the most tumultuous political weeks in recent memory.







All truly hilarious responses.

But then came Ted Cruz, with the best response yet:

Slow. Clap.


For those somehow unaware (oh how I envy you), the RompHim is the KickStarter creation of ACED Design and is likely the most atrocious – but most easily mockable – fashion invention ever. That’s just a scientific fact. Worse than the fedora-worn-with-a-t-shirt look. Worse, even, than the man bun. And when a hero needed to arise to oppose the RompHim, Ted Cruz proudly answered that call.

Senator Cruz’s response set the Internet ablaze with laughter, but not everyone was happy. GQ – which apparently has decided to moonlight as the Fun Police when it isn’t hosting the truly absurd video rantings of the fired-from-ESPN-and-fired-from-MSNBC Keith Olbermann – was none too amused by Cruz’s tweet, putting out an angry article entitled “Ted Cruz Somehow Already Ruined RompHims” (as if that were somehow a bad thing). The article said, in part: “Few people look at Ted Cruz and think, Boy, now that’s a guy with a sense of humor. He has the comedic timing of a bag of rocks and yet, somehow manages to have the confidence of the actual Rock.” Wow. Someone’s mad – almost as mad as DeadSpin (I believe now legally renamed TedSpin) was when Ted Cruz mercilessly dunked on them earlier this year.

As Texas Monthly would put it in their Quote of the Day section today:

“Cruz was weighing in on a caption contest for a photo of Senators Ben Basse and Chuck Schumer, implying the New York Senator just bought a few RompHims, a fashion item geared toward men that blew up on the internet earlier this week for some odd reason. Shortly after Cruz’s tweet, the men’s style gatekeepers over at GQ promptly asserted that Cruz had just “ruined rompers for men.” The RompHim is dead, and Ted Cruz killed it. RIP, RompHim.

Ted Cruz: Slayer of Big Government, Crusader for Liberty, Killer of the RompHim. Let’s be very clear here – if Ted Cruz did just kill off RompHims, then he did the nation and indeed the entire world a great service. “Vote Ted Cruz: He Somehow Already Ruined RompHims” might just be the greatest campaign slogan of all time. Here’s hoping he has the same level of success in getting rid of Obamacare. So thank you, Senator. Not all heroes wear capes – but no heroes wear RompHims.

Tom Cotton: The Most Powerful Man in Washington

Tom Cotton (R-AR) is the junior senator from Arkansas. In fact, Cotton has only been in the Senate for two months. He spent one term in the House of Representatives before making the leap to the upper house. Prior to his stint in elected politics, Cotton was a soldier in the Iraq War. He is now the most powerful man in Washington.

Cotton rounded up forty-six other Republican senators in Washington to sign a letter to Iran. That letter announced that no deal between President Obama and Iran would ever make it through the United States Senate. The constitution requires a two-thirds vote for any treaty to be ratified. An Iranian deal would not get a majority vote, let alone a two-thirds vote.

The outrage from Democrats was immediately. On twitter, the hashtag “#47traitors” exploded. More than 100,000 people signed a petition demanding the forty-seven senators be arrested for treason. Chris Matthews, the Walter Winchel of MSNBC, yelled at his viewers accusing the senators of violating the Logan Act. The soundbite got picked up and parroted by talking heads who needed a point and had none of their own.

The Logan Act is a law enacted in 1799 by President John Adams. It prohibits citizens from engaging foreign powers in contravention of the United States. Not a single person has ever been convicted of violating the Logan Act. Only one person, in 1803, was ever indicted under the Logan Act. The government is exempt from the law, obviously, and the State Department determined in 1975 that Congress, as a branch of government, was exempt from the Logan Act.

The rhetoric of the left has been farcical. The late Senator Ted Kennedy directly collaborated with the Soviet Union to undermine President Reagan’s foreign policy. We only learned about that as a nation when the Soviet Union collapsed and old KGB archives were uncovered.

In 2002, Congressmen John Bonior and Jim McDermott flew to Iraq to stand shoulder to shoulder with Saddam Hussein against George W. Bush. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to Syria to stand with Bassar Al Assad against George W. Bush. But the most similar action to Tom Cotton’ letter happened in 1984.

That year, then Democratic Leader Jim Wright, who would go on to be Speaker of the House, penned a letter to communist leader Daniel Ortega. The letter, signed by multiple Democrats in the Congress, pledged Democratic opposition to Ronald Reagan’s policies and sought to engage in separate diplomatic relations with Ortega than what the Reagan Administration was attempting.

For Hillary Clinton to claim last week that Tom Cotton’s letter was something unique in American history was as big a lie as her claiming she could not put two email accounts on one device. In fact, the Democrats know Tom Cotton’s actions are legal. They just do not like his boldness in defiance of a President who increasingly views himself as a dictator.

Try as they might, the Democrats have not been able to completely undermine the idea of three separate but equal branches of government. Their spittle flew when Speaker Boehner invited the Israeli Prime Minister to speak to Congress. Though they claimed the invitation was some sort of breach of protocol, the Speaker also invited the Pope to speak and the Democrats made no such claims.

What is really happening is the Democrats were attempting to allow Iranto build up a nuclear program without anyone noticing. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Senator Tom Cotton shed light on the Democrats’ plan. The Democrats were left scurrying about like roaches with the light turned on. They do not like it.

The net result of Senator Cotton’s actions has not been an indictment of forty-seven Republican senators. Instead, Secretary of State John Kerry had to admit President Obama’s negotiations with Iran were non-binding and unenforcible. But for Senator Tom Cotton, America would never have gotten that admission. It makes the senator one of the few people in Washington who has been able to throw Barack Obama off his game.

To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.


Ten Dollars in Cuts for One Dollar in Tax Increases

During the 2012 debates, Republicans were asked a simple question: would they accept a dollar in tax increases for ten dollars in spending cuts?

A friend asked them that question. It was not meant as a bullcrap question, but it is. The reason is because it generates a sound bite that advances a narrative that leaves out a whole lot of history.

As could easily be predicted, most every Republican said no and most every journalist used the occasion and answer to point out how unreasonable the Republicans were.

They all ignored Michele Bachmann who explained why it is actually a bullcrap question.

Republicans going back to Reagan and his tax reforms were always willing to raise taxes a bit in exchange for cuts. The problem was that repeatedly the tax increases stayed and the cuts were abandoned. So asking Republicans if they were willing to raise a dollar in taxes for ten dollars in cuts is essentially asking if the GOP is willing to raise taxes.

The cuts, if they every actually happen, are never permanent. The tax increases almost always are permanent. And the cuts, when they do happen, are most often cuts in the rate of growth and not actual, meaningful cuts.

The question oversimplified things and reflected a reality that is not.

The same thing is happening again. Members of the press are claiming we should all be able to recognize that Senator Tom Cotton’s letter to Iran was bad form. We all should be able to say it was a bad idea, even if we want to chide the press for not calling out Democrats who have done the same.

I must disagree.

The press routinely expects Republicans to condemn their own side for things Democrats routinely do. The press never does that to Democrats.

The outrage is always disproportionate against the GOP. It always is.

Just last week, the Democrats’ communications director said he wanted to kill Chris Christie dead. Were it the communications director of the GOP saying that about Hillary Clinton, we would be in the second week of news stories about the outrage. News networks would have daily coverage of Democrats getting threatened. See e.g. Elizabeth Lauten’s personal Facebook page.

I remember during the August recess town halls of 2009 and into 2010, I was just joining CNN. There was a segment on all the Democrats in Congress getting threats over their support of Obamacare. There were Republicans also getting threats for their opposition. The panel was not a partisan panel, but a regular news panel. The threats to the GOP were mentioned in passing, but the panel focused almost exclusively on Democrats.

Likewise, there were press stories about black Democrats walking down steps at the Capitol getting called the “n” word. Reporters who were actually present did not write about the story because it did not happen. But a number of reporters who were not present wrote about it when Democrats claimed it happened. And those press reports were not written about Democratic claims, but about the fact that the event happened even though it had not actually happened.

It is the same throughout the media. The biases are not just in what is covered, but in how much it is covered and where the coverage happens in the paper and in the segment placement and whether something is treated as claimed or true. Outrage over Republicans is always disproportionately higher. Republican statements are treated as claims and Democrat statements are treated as facts. It is not always intentional per se, but is always a reflection of the world view of those packaging the news. They view the tea party and conservatives as more disruptive, more malcontented, and more prone to bad behavior. So they focus on that as it conforms to a pre-conceived narrative.

I write all this to say that no, I will not be outraged by or condemn or speak ill of Senator Tom Cotton’s letter. I personally think it had its intended effect and completely threw the Obama Administration off its footing. John Kerry was forced to scramble and the whole Iranian affair has gotten a lot more attention than anyone in the press intended to give it.

And even if I did not agree, I would not be inclined to say much negative about it because the disparity in how the press treats Republican behavior and Democrat behavior need not be encouraged by my own side.

I won’t take ten dollars in cuts for one dollar in increases because the cuts will never come and I won’t moralize against the 47 Senators for writing that letter because I know the press would never, ever, ever spend equivalent time criticizing the Democrats for doing the same against a Republican President.

If the press has no intention of being fair, don’t expect the rest of us to be.

The ‘Logan Act’ is the Talking Point of Hacks and Morons

I have to hand it to Democrats. This is the first time they’ve ever labeled someone a traitor and not sought to ally with him against the United States.

Chris Matthews, the longer he stays at MSNBC, becomes more and more as dumb as a bag of rocks. He thinks the 47 United States Senators who signed a letter to Iran should be charged under the Logan Act. Left wing activists have labeled them “47 traitors”.

I’m not sure what low grade moron came up with the talking point, but someone should kick the originator of the talking point in the crotch. It’s just stupid.

The Logan Act originated in 1799. Not a single person has ever been convicted under the Logan Act. Ironically, the namesake of the law, George Logan, after compelling John Adams to get the act passed, became a United States Senator. The Logan Act serves mostly as a partisan tool to throw at opponents who dare to contradict a sitting President’s foreign policy.

Democrats have, for years, routinely sought to undermine Republican administrations and their foreign policy. Lest we forget, [mc_name name=’Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA)’ chamber=’house’ mcid=’M000404′ ] flew to Baghdad in 2002 to have a photo-op with Saddam Hussein in opposition to the Iraq War.

Former Speaker Jim Wright worked with the communists in Nicaragua to undermine President Reagan’s foreign policy. The Democrats forget about that too.

The “Logan Act” talking point has been passed around by a bunch of dim witted buffoons like Chris Matthews. It’s great red meat for a partisan crowd, but will not be used and most likely cannot be used.

As Steve Vladeck noted on his Lawfare site,

The text of the Logan Act makes it a crime for citizens to engage in “any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government . . . with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government . . . in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States.” As Peter explained yesterday, the Senators’ letter certainly seems to fall within this language. But, critically, the citizen must act “without authority of the United States.” Although most assume that means without authority of the Executive Branch, the Logan Act itself does not specify what this term means, and the State Department told Congress in 1975 that “Nothing in section 953 . . . would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution.”

It’s a stupid talking point used by unserious people who want to avoid having to deal with the fact that the President of the United States is giving away the farm to Iranians who, given the chance, would gladly kill him, you, me, and everyone complaining about a Logan Act violation.

I Gave $100 to Thom Tillis’s Campaign

Whether he wins his nomination or not, I won’t send even a penny to Tom Cotton in Arkansas unless he fires his campaign manager Justin Brasell. Brasell used Ben Sasse’s children in a television commercial to attack Ben Sasse. Then, after producing and placing the ads, Brasell quit his PAC that placed the ads. What a cowardly thing to do. You’d think a guy like Tom Cotton who touts his military career and values would object to that, but Tom Cotton is keeping Justin Brasell on the payroll. So I won’t give a penny to Cotton to subsidize Justin Brasell’s income, whether Cotton becomes the nominee or not (and he will be).

But I am sending money to Thom Tillis whose candidacy I opposed in the North Carolina Republican Primary. For conservatives, Thom Tillis was the worst possible outcome in North Carolina. Backed by Crossroads and the Chamber, Tillis will not back free markets and small government to the extent either of his other major competitors would.

But Tillis is massively better than Kay Hagan. Tillis would not vote for Obamacare in the Senate, unlike Kay Hagan.

Many conservatives are upset by the outcome in North Carolina. But politics is always about choosing between the lesser of two evils. Every one of us is a sinner. We all fall short of the glory of God. And we must sometimes in a democracy (“It’s a republic, dammit!” screams the crowd) choose between people we may not prefer. There are no perfect candidates. There will never be a perfect candidate.

You could choose to sit home and claim Tillis is no better than Hagan, but that’s just bitterness talking. Tillis is an improvement over Hagan and I say that as someone who opposed him in the primary.

I gave $100.00 to Thom Tillis’s campaign. We should all rally now to defeat Kay Hagan.

The post I Gave $100 to Thom Tillis’s Campaign appeared first on RedState.

Justin Brasell, Tom Cotton’s Campaign Manager, Puts Ben Sasse’s Daughters in an Ad. To Attack Ben Sasse.

Tom Cotton’s campaign manager, Justin Brasell, just placed a hit job on Nebraska airwaves against Ben Sasse. Cotton, who is running for the U.S. Senate from Arkansas as a Republican, apparently has no problem with his campaign manager moonlighting to attack another Republican.

Cotton’s campaign manager, however, is using video of Ben Sasse’s daughters in an attack ad against Sasse. Even more bizarre, the clip of his daughters is just so random. It makes no sense in the advertisement.

Cotton’s campaign manager, by the way, used to run Mitch McConnell’s campaign and his Super PAC that bought the ad is also managed by the guy who ran McConnell’s Super PAC.

Mitch McConnell denies any responsibility, but with a crappy ad like that using video of a candidate’s kids, would you want to take credit?

Update: After posting this, Justin Brasell left the PAC. In other words, after making his media buy to attack Ben Sasse, Justin Brasell tried to disassociate himself with the PAC. Remember, Tom Cotton’s campaign manager did this and Tom Cotton is keeping the guy on the payroll.

The post Justin Brasell, Tom Cotton’s Campaign Manager, Puts Ben Sasse’s Daughters in an Ad. To Attack Ben Sasse. appeared first on RedState.

Does Tom Cotton Want Democrats to Win?

Some inquiring media needs to ask Tom Cotton this question.

With Shane Osborn out of the running, Sid Dinsdale trailing, and Ben Sasse in the lead in Nebraska with little time left, Tom Cotton’s campaign manager is running an ad campaign against Ben Sasse. Cotton is, himself, running for the Republican nomination for the Senate in Arkansas.

Sasse is supporting by conservatives as diverse as National Review, the Club for Growth, the Senate Conservatives Fund, Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, and me. He is winning. In fact, he’s surged ahead in the last few days.

But Tom Cotton’s campaign manager, Justin Brasell, just placed more than $100,000.00 in advertising in Nebraska to attack Ben Sasse.

Does Tom Cotton want the Democrats to win? If not, is he cool with his campaign manager attacking a Republican just as he is headed into a general election against the Democrats?

The post Does Tom Cotton Want Democrats to Win? appeared first on RedState.