Senator Ted Cruz: I’m Not in D.C. to ‘Make 99 New Friends’

Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz is defiant in the face of criticism of his hardline, conservative tactics during the show down over the shut down and the idea of defunding the President’s disastrous take over of our healthcare system with Obamacare. He didn’t go to Washington to make “99 new friends,” he said.

In a new interview with ABC News, Cruz was asked about his purported unpopularity among some quarters (like idiot RINOs, and the anti-American Democrat Party). But Cruz was unbowed by the hate of those that themselves deserve to be reviled–the latter are my words, not his.

“There’s an old saying that, ‘Politics, it ain’t beanbag.’ And, you know, I’m not serving in office because I desperately needed 99 new friends in the U.S. Senate,” the Texas Senator said.

The Texas dynamo went on to say that if he is reviled in Washington but loved in Texas then that is a deal he’d take any day.

He also lamented the recent deal made by the Senate to end the partial shut down of the federal government.

“I will say that the reason this deal, the lousy deal was reached last night, is because, unfortunately, Senate Republicans made the choice not to support House Republicans,” Cruz said. “I wish Senate Republicans had united, I tried to do everything I could to urge Senate Republicans to come together and stand with House Republicans.”

“I think it was unfortunate that you saw multiple members of the Senate Republicans going on television attacking House conservatives, attacking the effort to defund Obamacare, saying, ‘It cannot win, It’s a fools error and we will lose, this must fail,'” Cruz went on.

“That is a recipe for losing the fight, and it’s a shame,” he said.

Cruz is a conservative hero. The Republican RINOs in the senate need to emulate him, not attack him… I’m looking at YOU John McLame.

Consumer Reports Says Stay Away From
After 93 Years Church Throws Out Boy Scouts for Now Favoring Gays
  • Lawrence Westlake

    Cruz is the new Gingrich in a sense, but ironically enough he’s less important and more of a muckety muck. At least Gingrich technically was the 3rd highest ranking guy in the entire federal government and had won a major elected office long before the ’94 wave cycle. Cruz is the junior senator from a one-party state who won his federal office during a wave election cycle. Not exactly another Reagan. The similarties between Cruz and Gingrich chiefly lie in the complete disconnect between the rhetoric and the results (if you actually thought Cruz’s dog and pony show would defund Obamcare then you’re as naive as a babe in the woods) and in the pointless excitement generated among various cocooned fringe demographics. Just as is the case today, back in the mid-1990’s the talk radio and National Review crowds were all aflutter about Gingrich’s tactics and talking points. Meanwhile Clinton continued pissing all over them right up until literally the day of his departure, years later. The surreal irony demographically speaking is that now with Cruz it’s the same people. They’re just older. Many of whom retired a decade ago on public money pensions (irony of all ironies) or haven’t worked in decades (the housewife and househusband demographics) or who have zero formal education or experience (the “dittohead” demographics). The right wing sheeple brigades. Cruz has and will continue laughing all the way to the bank. But he has zero chance at the presidency. In 15 years or so he’ll completely be forgotten or he’ll still be a back bencher in a minority caucus in a milquetoast legislative body. Meet the new hero, same as the old hero.

    • Texas_Accountant

      “The right wing sheeple brigades.” I find it amusing that someone who wants to be told what to do by the government (buy insurance!) refers to people who don’t want to be dictated to by anyone, as “sheeple.”
      I guess I am one of those with “zero formal education,” since I didn’t major in some worthless liberal arts “victim studies” program. I barely made it through the undergraduate degree in computer science and, fortunately, the college was giving away master’s degrees in accounting if you just sat for two years.
      What I really find strange about the “government shut down” was how little I noticed it. I’m sorry, let me re-phrase, “I didn’t notice it at all.” If we drop the 20% of spending that was considered non-essential, I’d be fine.
      BTW, most of the people on “public money pensions” or those who haven’t worked in decades (SSDI) are Democrats. Rob Peter to pay Paul and you will always get Paul’s vote.

    • LiberalNightmare

      >> Cruz is the junior senator from a one-party state who won his federal office during a wave election cycle

      You gotta watch those Jr Senators, they can sneak up on ya.

      • And if they knock the old guard over the head and drag them off into the bushes for disposal, I’m not sure that’d be a bad thing…

    • Retired military

      I take it they didn’t teach you about paragraphs in your public school. try them you’ll like them.

    • 914

      Westlake held such promise…! Til’ We slewed up!’.. Dropped anchor and hit foggy bottom. lol’

    • Olsoljer

      50% of brain surgeons graduate in the bottom half of their class, by your thinking, if they manage to stay in practice for 10 or more years, they must know everything about their profession.

      How many years did the medical profession cling to the use of leeches (democrats?) before discovering it did more harm than good, before innovative (conservatives?) medical professionals found the best resort was an infusion of new blood?

      • Actually, leeches are having a resurgence for the treatment of crushing injuries or other trauma where blood is not circulating away from the injury site…

        Nothing new under the sun and all things old become new again.

        • Olsoljer

          You are correct. In crush injuries, massive damage and the resulting flood of blood into the affected area is contained by the fascia, creating more pressure thus reducing circulation even more. The alternative would be to open the wound and cut the fascia allowing open bleeding to assist in reducing the swelling – this however creates an open wound and additional risks of infection. Not very many people are aware of that, I salute you for your knowledge. You are eroding my view of MA Grads. 🙂

          • Ah, but I was never a Cadet, and have never so much as set foot on the grounds of Hudson High.

  • LiberalNightmare

    >> The Texas dynamo went on to say that if he is reviled in Washington but loved in Texas then that is a deal he’d take any day.

    Looks like he made the right call. When was the last time John Mccain got a standing o in AZ?

    • jim_m

      When was the last time John Mccain got a standing o in AZ?

      Whenever he leaves the room is my guess.

  • LiberalNightmare

    What Cruz did was to point out to the american people, that a game was being played. The fix was already in for Obama-crap, the house planned to vote for a CR that stripped out Obama-crap, then when Harry Reid modified the resolution to include Obama-crap and sent it back, the house was going to vote it thru, having already made their symbolic vote against it.

    This little charade would allow funding for Obama’scrap while also allowing the house republicans to go home and lie to their constituents that they had done everything they could.

    What Cruz accomplished was to hold the republicans feet to the fire and make them do what they said they would when the ran for office in 2012. In the process he made alot of republicrats real nervous about their chances next election cycle. Expect new faces next time around.

    If the senate republicans hadn’t switched sides on Cruz, they could have at least extracted concessions from the democrats (in retrospect, it might have worked out better for dems if the had been forced to delay.)

    • As it is, Obama and Reid have fought so much for this that there’s no way back. They can’t delay it – they can’t suspend it.

      And it’s theirs now – completely and wholly. A poison pill that could kill the Democratic Party. But will they cough it up as something that they can’t make us all swallow?

      Time will tell.

      • jim_m

        How will it destroy the dem party? It is exactly what they want. They don’t really care whether it works for the public or not because it vastly expands government jobs and control over our lives. They don’t give a rip how much it costs because they will just tax us more anyway. It provides a never ending source of favors they can dispense to friends, family and people willing to bribe them with campaign contributions.

        Even if it doesn’t work, that is not a bug but rather a feature since it then provides endless opportunity to campaign on how they will fix the problem that was created by the GOP (and you can bet everything that they will find a way with the MSM to fix the blame on the GOP and McCain and Boehner will be all too willing to accept that blame – all they want is the scraps from the table and they will pay any price to be able to get those).

        • Commander_Chico

          It would hurt the Dem party if it does not work in some ways.

          There are some things that seem to be sure winners, like the ability of people with preexisting conditions to get insurance.

          Whether the rest of it works, as J says, time will tell,

          • jim_m

            The system only works if you get young people who have no preexisting conditions to sign up. Since the system works out such that they are better off paying the penalty than signing up they will for the most part pay the penalty, meaning that the whole system will be underfunded.

            Also, I have seen stories about the Washington state exchange that say the percentage of people signing p that qualify for subsidies is between 50 and 90%. SO if most of the people signing up are not paying the full rate the system is by definition unsustainable.

            All this for a system that is costing us trillions and will not ensure any more people than were ensured to begin with.

            As I said, this is only a win because it creates thousands of government jobs the dems can control and it subjects everyone to government control of healthcare. It is a success only to the extent that it is an instrument of an authoritarian state.

          • It’s not looking good…

            “In New York, one of only 16 states that has its own exchange, not one person had succeeded in using the site to enroll in a plan as of Friday.”


            One of the things about a government job is that there’s got to actually be a semblance of work for them to do. As you’re saying – if nobody actually signs up, there’s not going to be any work, and therefore no need for the people. And like any union shop, they operate on a ‘last hired, first fired’ basis.

            They’ll be needed, until they’re not.

          • It might seem to be needed – until the numbers start showing the reality instead of the hype.

            How many people with preexisting conditions are there who will be benefitting from this? We already had a program that was supposed to give coverage for high-risk people – and that didn’t get anywhere near the numbers expected. I think they were looking at 350k, and ended up getting about a third of that number.


            So how many people will actually need this for coverage – and USE it?

            We’re spending a hell of a lot for some pretty dubious benefits, and we’re already in debt up to our eyeballs. And it’ll all work until it doesn’t – at which point the choices get a lot simpler.

          • Commander_Chico

            I looked at that ncsl website – it’s very complicated. Different states have different plans, the way to sign up is obscure, etc..

            Health care is part of a general problem in the USA – things are so complicated and there are so many traps for the unwary in any commercial or government transaction designed to suck money out of your pocket, that you have to be practically a genius to avoid being ripped off.

          • I won’t disagree – that’s why I let my lovely bride the health care professional figure out what’s what.

            We NEED to simplify things – and I know you kind of favor single payer, (at least I think you do, if I’m wrong I apologize) but I don’t see we can go that route. Our health care bureaucracy doesn’t favor flexibility or simplicity, and single payer as in the UK doesn’t seem to be working so hot at the present time. (As in, it’s better than nothing, but not by all that much…)

            I don’t know – I think we’re hitting a crunch time here on a lot of sociological trends re AGW, education, energy, health care… and there’s not many ways to make it through. The folks in DC want to maintain tight control of everything – but that’s just not going to work.

          • Commander_Chico

            The UK is not just single payer – the government runs the hospitals, so all health care workers are government employees.

            Canada (where I am at right now) has single-payer, seems to be OK, there are lots of small clinics attached to pharmacies and the hospitals are mostly run by the type of non-profits they are run by in the USA.

            Vermont has single payer now, I guess that’s working ok.

          • jim_m

            Wrong! Canada rations health care by limiting the number of procedures annually. It also creates lengthy waiting lists for treatment. You can wait months to begin chemotherapy for your cancer which often means the difference between life and death. I’d love to see your reaction when the doctor tells you that your child must find a way to survive until next year and IF he is still healthy enough he may just be high enough on the list to get the therapy that will save his life.

            You wait months for surgery too. They reduce the numbers of procedures every year because they are running out of money.

            Your choice is that you choose to take a system where if y9ou have the money you can get treated to a system where the money allowed into the system is fixed by government fiat and there is no access to therapy unless you are among the super rich and you can travel to another country to get treated. It used to be that you could go to the US but obama is seeing to it that this avenue is closed.

          • The problem I’m seeing is with OUR government running much of anything in a cost effective manner. Just look at the Obamacare website debacle – the question would be just where the money went on that thing, and if the user interface is so lousy, why is there an assumption that what’s beyond the sign-up will be wonderful?

            And let’s be honest – the money’s going to have to come from somewhere to pay for single-payer. We’re damn near tapped out, and trying to fund a national single-payer system might just collapse the whole financial house of cards.

            Things can look good from the outside – and not so hot once you pay your money and hope to receive your goods.

          • Commander_Chico

            I don’t see extreme complaints from people who use Medicare – which is a single payer system.

            Remember, “get your government hands off my Medicare!”


          • But yet you hear of medicare reimbursements dropping.

            As long as there’s plenty of money – or the illusion of it – the system works.


          • Commander_Chico

            It’s true that Medicare squeezes on cost. That’s what they should do.

            There is a big problem with the AMA as a guild limiting access to the medical profession. You don’t want stupid or unqualified doctors, but the number of smart kids who would be good doctors far exceeds the number of US medical school seats.

            A lot of the rest of the cost is “the system” skimming money out of every transaction, procedure, and $20 tongue depressor.

          • jim_m

            No, they simply pay less than what it costs because they don’t have the money. paying 45 cents on the dollar does not cover most treatments.

            Funny how you never look at how much money is spent funding medicare and how much medicare pays out. You think that all those bureaucrats do it for grins? There is a lot of wasted overhead with the government and you seem to think that it all comes for free.

          • jim_m

            Except my parents, whose physician told them that he will not accept medicare and that they have to pay him and then get reimbursed. And it isn’t like he is from some bogus institution, he’s from Northwestern Memorial in Chicago.

          • Jwb10001

            Just read a story about the Canadian single payer system. Seems the government has run out of money for certain procedures, cataracts, knee/hip replacements etc. To add insult to untreated injury, the cap on these procedures for 2013 is lower than in 2012.

          • jim_m

            This is not new. Canada has capped life saving procedures like bone marrow transplants since the 90’s.

          • Jwb10001

            My wife has a friend at work that is trying to get a bone marrow transplant for her sick daughter. I think she’s hoping someone on the waiting list ahead of them will die before they get the procedure so her daughter can get moved up the list. It’s pathetic.

          • jim_m

            I see the lefties are against anyone hearing the truth, hence the down vote.

            [edit] so they removed the down vote above and moved it here. How childish.

          • jim_m

            Yes, let’s have single payer so we can set caps on the numbers of surgeries that can be performed and then we can reduce those caps every year while the demand for those same surgeries continually increases.

            The problem, according to hospital CEO David Musyj, is that the number of procedures – when it comes to cataracts, hips replacements and knee replacements – is capped by the Health Ministry. And hospital officials (up until October, cataracts were done by Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital, which has since transferred cataracts to Windsor Regional) were scheduling surgeries based on the previous year’s cap of 5, 022. Then in September, they learned the cap for the fiscal year that started April 1 would be 4,849. In 2010, there were 5,412 procedures, he said. In a guest column published in today’s Windsor Star, Musyj said the cuts are due to the continuing rise in health care costs and governments looking for ways to cope with them.

          • Let’s not, and say we didn’t. 😉

          • Commander_Chico

            As if there were not limits on private insurance – many horror stories there, of course.

          • jim_m

            Once again: You can sue your insurer and get them to pay. There are plenty of those stories out there. You cannot sue the government and get faceless, nameless bureaucrats to change their decisions.

          • Commander_Chico

            Sure you can. You can also put political pressure on the government, like the Canadian in your story successfully did.

          • jim_m

            It is easy to get an insurer to move in a tome frame that will be meaningful for your treatment. It is not the case with government. Whereas no one dies from cataracts, people do die from cancer and petitioning your government to change treatment policies is a losing proposition when the government knows that without treatment you’ll be dead in a year.

          • jim_m

            No. Health care has been and is simple. Government regulations on healthcare and health insurance make payment and reimbursement very complex.

          • Vagabond661

            true dat.

          • Nothing adds complexity for no net improvement like Government.

        • Joe and Jane Dem suddenly find that the insurance they used to pay $X for is now costing $X*2, with lousy deductibles and copays. The ACA, which they thought was going to reduce their payout, suddenly ends up costing them a lot more.

          They’re going to LOVE it, right? They’ll be voting for Democrats until they die – possibly longer.

  • Retired military

    I am willing to bet that sometime between now and Christmas we will get a news story about tea party hackers causing problems with the Obamacare sites and code.

  • JWH

    Ted Cruz may not be in town to make 99 new friends, but from what I’ve read, he’s well on his way to making 98 new enemies.

    • Jwb10001

      Good, the man ran on repealing obamacare he got elected because he promised to attack obamacare and do what he could to undo it. What do you suggest he should have done, what most politicians do, tell the people what they want to hear then do whatever the weak ass leadership wants? Do you feel the same way about Alan Greyson? He’s a big mouth bad ass too, should he have 434 enemies? Do the dems ever turn on their bomb throwers? Perhaps but I can think of any.

      • JWH

        I suggest that if one wishes to pass a law, it helps to have 50 friends in the Senate, 218 in the House, and one in the White House. Alienating your colleagues does not help matters.

        Ever wonder why Obama is ineffective with Congress? it’s because he’s not very good at playing the legislative game. Cruz may travel down the same path.

        • Jwb10001

          You have to start somewhere, I’m sure Cruz would be happy to go campaign with any conservative candidates that want him. As for not alienating colleagues perhaps that’s not a bad thing if it shows them for the inside players they are. You know that some how magically Kentucky got a 2 billion dollar ear mark in the “clean” CR that just passed? I would rather piss off the republican that allowed that and work to get his ass out of the senate than to worry about who’s feelings got hurt in the process.

          • JWH

            Thing is … Cruz has alienated a crapton of senators, including a lot of them on his own side of the aisle. If he alienates them, it’s harder for him to accomplish anything.

            Let me put it this way. Let’s say that I want my government to do something. I’m going to call it “a loaf of bread,” but you can call it a “tax cut” if you prefer.

            So, I want my government to give me a loaf of bread. Let’s say I’ve got two senators. Senator One is loud, antagonistic, and bombastic. Senator Two is a quiet, conciliatory type. I vote in both of them on the promise of giving me a loaf of bread.

            They go to the Senate and start working on the loaf of bread.

            Senator One loudly demands a loaf of bread OR ELSE. He makes a lot of noise and generates a lot of heat, and he gets a lot of people talking about a loaf of bread … but he manages to piss off the other senators so much that they don’t want to help him out.

            Result: Lots of pictures of Senator One in the newspaper. Lots of appearances on Fox News, where everyone sees him, and MSNBC, where nobody sees him. But no effin’ loaf of bread.

            Senator Two works behind closed doors, and he talks up the loaf of bread. Some of his colleagues are completely opposed to the loaf of bread. Some are neutral on the loaf of bread, but they are willing to support Senator Two if he’ll help them with the Kaiser roll appropriation. Others are somewhat opposed to the loaf of bread, but they’ll make deals.

            Senator Two comes back to my state … and he’s got half a loaf of bread.

            Honestly, I wanted a whole loaf. But y’know what? I’m more impressed with a senator who gets me half my loaf and does it quietly than I am with one who’s all kinds of noisy, but can’t even get me a lousy pumpernickel heel.

        • Tell it to John Brown’s Ghost.

      • Commander_Chico

        Cruz wimped out in the end, he could have put a hold on the spending bill. A show-boating charlatan.

      • JWH

        Do you feel the same way about Alan Greyson? He’s a big mouth bad ass too, should he have 434 enemies?

        I honestly don’t know. Cruz has shown up on my radar because he’s a senator, he’s loud, and he was a leader in the government shutdown effort. I’ve also run across stories about Cruz’s less-than-stellar relationship with his colleagues. I haven’t come across anything about Grayson, so I have no opinion.

        Also, I should remark that there’s some difference between merely being a big mouth and leading a government shutdown. One is annoying, the other ends with your colleagues getting really angry calls from constituents.

        • Jwb10001

          Well for a guy that has no friends I’d be interested to know how he could lead an effort to shut down the government. All it takes to stop a filibuster is 60 votes shouldn’t have been that hard given how unpopular Cruz is.

          • JWH

            I didn’t say he had no friends. Just that he’s on his way to making 98 enemies in the Senate. He does have allies … in the House of Representatives.

            And in case you didn’t notice, the government shutdown wasn’t a filibuster issue. From a procedural standpoint, it actually involved House inaction. There, the Speaker declined to allow the House to take action because he felt such action did not have the support of a majority of his caucus.

          • Jwb10001

            You just about got everything wrong in that comment. First of all if the government shut down wasn’t a filibuster issue then Ted Cruz had nothing to do with it because about his only tool is to filibuster. Remember he’s just the Jr Senator from Texas not the majority or minority leader. Second the house was very active during this mess, now you may not like what they did but they sent several bills to the senate where there was zero action. So to describe the house as refusing to take action is not accurate.

          • jim_m

            They sent 11 bills to the Senate and Reid refused to take up every single one. But don’t expect the lefty to be familiar with facts. Ideology is what informs his ideas of truth.

          • JWH

            I should note a couple more things:

            Obstruction — a negative action — is relatively easy, due to Senate custom and the structure set up in the US Constitution. But actually passing a law — a positive action — requires building consensus with other legislators and, ultimately, with the White House.

    • Any man should be proud to have enemies like those 98.

  • JWH

    By the way … my prediction: In 2016, Republicans will run on a “repeal Obamacare” platform. By 2024, Republicans will pledge to preserve the promise of the Affordable Care Act without raising taxes.

    • Texas_Accountant


      My prediction (for what it’s worth) in 2024 the U.S. will not have enough money to pay interest on the debt as well as SS, Medicare, and Obamacare. Something will go. Your guess is as good as mine.

      • jim_m

        Something will go. Your guess is as good as mine.

        I’ll place my bets on a civil society going away.

        • Commander_Chico

          My bet is the USA breaking up within 50 years. Will South Carolina lead the way again, or will it be Vermont?

          Hope someone pays my Navy reserve pension!

          • Texas_Accountant

            And my wife’s Army reserve pension.

          • Commander_Chico

            If you’re in Texas, you’re at greater danger of secession.

            I’ll just keep my residency somewhere in the rump USA and live in Thailand.

          • Y’all can go to hell…

          • cpaforerp

            Right now, we don’t consider that a “danger.” My wife retired as a LTC, and we would trade her military retirement for freedom.

      • JWH

        Something does have to give, though I think you and I differ on what might give and why.

      • Commander_Chico

        SS and Medicare are easy to fix. All you have to do is raise the cap on income for FICA contributions from 109,000 to something like 125,000. This would affect me, but it seems a no-brainer.

        You also left out stopping spending on insane foreign wars and trying to control the rest of the world in myriad ways, including billions for NSA.

        • Texas_Accountant

          Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point of view), the people who will pay the higher cap in 2024 will be those dumb millennials who voted in large numbers for Obama.

          • Commander_Chico

            Well, that’s a win.

            There are lots of things in federal law where money limits have not been raised, and now are ridiculously low.

            For example, the requirement to declare any $10,000 transaction or currency export. When that was introduced around 1970, $10,000 was a lot more money.

            It’s kind of crazy that the kid who earned $5000 pays FICA, while there’s no FICA on marginal amounts over $113,000

  • Refreshing to see any member of Congress clearly state that they work for their constituents and their interests, not those of Washington DC.