Cruz is the new McCarthy

  • Follow Letters

McCarthyism is on the march again from within the leadership of the Republican Party. Oh no, you say, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is from the Tea Party, not a Republican leader. Tell that to Sarah Palin and others who argue that Cruz is the new leader of the Republicans.

They point out how Cruz took the Senate floor for 21 hours, arguing that he had to stop Obamacare funding by shutting down the government. They are proud that he said that, unlike the world that refused to stop the Nazis in 1940, he would be the hero of America and stop Obamacare funding. (He is equating Obamacare to Hitler killing 6 million Jews and Christians.)

Is this man a fraud, as he was called by Republican U.S. Rep. Peter King of New York? I don’t think so. I have no doubt that he believes what he says and ultimately will resort to name-calling and characterizing those who oppose him as unpatriotic.

Like Joe McCarthy, he uses scare tactics to bully his way to the television news screens, despite all logic that these tactics are not only abusive but full of falsehoods. Like McCarthy in the 1950s, he is a dangerous zealot who will capture the ugliest right-wingers to his side, to the detriment of America. Why else would he argue to keep millions from Obamacare, including children younger than 26 of parents with health care, and those with chronic diseases who now are dropped from care? He as a senator has the best of health care, but will lie and spread propaganda to prevent Americans from having the same.

Fortunately, Republicans such as John McCain and most Democratic senators have figured him out. They know he doesn’t care if the government shuts down because it would satisfy his right-wing buddies who will, in their hatred for Obama and Obamacare, sacrifice the fiscal responsibilities of our government and destroy its integrity.

This time around, Cruz will be stopped. But hold on to your horses – he is just beginning his march on Obamacare, Social Security, food stamps, labor, immigration and the other programs that make this country the strongest there is.

We went through the McCarthy era, and we learned what a demagogue in power can do.

We also know that we have to beware of Cruz and his policies. This includes the Republicans, who have much at stake in coming elections and need to regain control of their party or again lose favor with the voters.

Lowell Greenbaum

Augusta

(The writer is chairman of the Richmond County Democratic Party.)

Comments (72) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
harley_52
21737
Points
harley_52 09/28/13 - 04:21 pm
3
2
Only One Man...

....in the Country has the power to "shut down" the Federal government.

His name is Barack Obama.

If the Federal government is "shut down" it will be because he decided to do it.

burninater
8651
Points
burninater 09/28/13 - 04:50 pm
2
4
.

.

harley_52
21737
Points
harley_52 09/28/13 - 04:50 pm
3
2
"The Constitution gives no authority to the President...

...to "shut down" the gov't."

Baloney.

He heads the Executive Branch of the government. "Shutting down" the government is an Executive decision. Congress can't do it. The Courts can't do it.

President Obama apparently has little regard for the Constitution anyway.

burninater
8651
Points
burninater 09/28/13 - 05:01 pm
2
5
I'm clarifying my prior

I'm clarifying my prior comment. The President can veto appropriations, which allows a shutdown in a deficit situation. Gov't entities with sufficient funding beyond the vetoed appropriations can continue to function whether the President vetoes new appropriations or not.

There is no Executive power beyond the veto that allows the President to shut down gov't. A President cannot simply proclaim gov't to be shut down, and have it so. Additionally, if a President vetoes appropriations, the Congress has not been dissolved -- it can still override that veto, and gov't will continue to be funded.

The blanket statement that a President can, by Executive decision, shut the gov't down, is false.

harley_52
21737
Points
harley_52 09/28/13 - 05:01 pm
3
3
Burninater (4:50 PM Post)

I see we have another of the "shoot and hide" posters in burninater.

Post some nonsensical, dishonest statement and then when it's refuted go back and erase it.

Liberals are so predictable.....

harley_52
21737
Points
harley_52 09/28/13 - 05:04 pm
3
2
More Baloney...

The President can make the executive decision that he doesn't have sufficient appropriations to conduct the day to day operations of the government.

That is, in fact, the ONLY way the government can be "shut down." Beyond that, the President can (within certain restrictions) decide how to "shut down" various Departments and activities within the Federal government.

burninater
8651
Points
burninater 09/28/13 - 05:05 pm
2
4
Statement clarified. Hard to

Statement clarified. Hard to let ten minutes go by before turning negative and nasty?

harley_52
21737
Points
harley_52 09/28/13 - 05:07 pm
3
2
The President Can...by Executive Decision...

...shut down the government. No quibbling, no doubt about it.

It has happened before and it may well happen again.

The President uses the threat of a "shut down" to bully Congress into doing things HIS WAY. It's his way, or the highway. No other President in my lifetime can come close to the tyrannical style of the current occupant of the White House.

burninater
8651
Points
burninater 09/28/13 - 05:09 pm
2
4
"The President can make the

"The President can make the executive decision that he doesn't have sufficient appropriations to conduct the day to day operations of the government."
------
And again. This does not shut down the gov't. Any President that decided to attempt this strategy could, and likely would, be immediately impeached by the still-existing Congress.

It is a simple fact of the Constitution that an Executive cannot simply order the gov't to cease functioning.

harley_52
21737
Points
harley_52 09/28/13 - 05:11 pm
2
2
" Hard to let ten minutes go by before turning....

...negative and nasty?"

Don't ask me, you (as usual) started the nastiness and negativity.

Nice move to try to run away from it, however, by erasing your insulting 4:50 PM post.

burninater
8651
Points
burninater 09/28/13 - 05:12 pm
2
4
"It has happened before and

"It has happened before and it may well happen again."

Give me a single case where a President has, by executive order, not by an overridable appropriations veto, shut down the gov't.

Just one.

burninater
8651
Points
burninater 09/28/13 - 05:19 pm
2
4
"Don't ask me, you (as usual)

"Don't ask me, you (as usual) started the nastiness and negativity."
------
Harley, calling a false statement false is neither negative or nasty. It's the simple truth. My original post contained not a single personal attack.

Good day.

harley_52
21737
Points
harley_52 09/28/13 - 05:15 pm
2
4
He SHOULD Be Impeached...

...if he shuts down the government. Right now, it's just a threat. He whines about the military not being paid and seniors not getting their Social Security checks. Both of which are pure theater..

Congress has most recently offered to appropriate sufficient funding for each and every government function EXCEPT Obamacare. He refuses and says the government will be "shut down" unless gets everything (including Obamacare) funding.

He's a tyrant and a bully and he threatens rather than consults.

harley_52
21737
Points
harley_52 09/28/13 - 05:17 pm
3
3
"Just one."

Bill Clinton, when he decided to "shut down" the government to punish Republicans.

burninater
8651
Points
burninater 09/28/13 - 05:32 pm
2
4
"Just one."Bill Clinton,

"Just one."
Bill Clinton, when he decided to "shut down" the government to punish Republicans.
------
And again. Overridable vetoes of appropriations, or threats thereof, are not gov't shutdowns by Executive decision.

The gov't continues to exist, and an appropriations veto by the Executive can be immediately overriden.

AutumnLeaves
5619
Points
AutumnLeaves 09/28/13 - 05:30 pm
3
2
Lowell's letter is just the

Lowell's letter is just the same ol' same ol' from him. I don't know why anyone that has met him could take him seriously. BTW Why do they call themselves Progressives when they aren't?

harley_52
21737
Points
harley_52 09/28/13 - 06:37 pm
3
2
Burninater....

As is often the case you are quibbling and obfuscating.

The fact of the matter is that the President is the only person who can "shut down" the government. Whether it can theoretically be overriden is moot. He has the near total support of democrats in both houses of Congress (the same ones who rammed Obamacare through in the first place) and, therefore, Congress has no capability to override anything he does, even if it could make a difference (which I doubt).

Specifically....IF the government is "shut down" in this particular case it will be ONLY because President Obama decides that's what he wants to do and NO OTHER REASON. He is not willing to discuss any funding options with Republicans, nor is the Senate Majority Leader. It is Their Way or the Highway.

You can quibble, obfuscate, or dance around it however you choose, but "them's the facts, Jack."

GnipGnop
11422
Points
GnipGnop 09/28/13 - 06:44 pm
3
2
This is funny

I hope all the self-proclaimed Constitution supporters who back Cruz are at least being honest with themselves about this. This is explicitly a move to hold the Constitutional gov't hostage to force an outcome that they cannot achieve by following the Constitutional legislative process....when do democrats support the constitution? They want to take away your guns and force you to buy something that they themselves admitted they don't have a clue what is in it....how many times has Obama and his minions circumvented the constitution? Do I need to list them?

harley_52
21737
Points
harley_52 09/28/13 - 06:45 pm
3
2
"BTW Why do they call themselves Progressives when they aren't?"

Because the term "liberals" has become a pejorative. "Liberals" are roundly reviled and scorned because of all the damage they've done to American society. They adopted the term "progressive" to try to trick people into believing they aren't "liberals," but something more respectable and well intentioned.

Almost nobody has been fooled.

burninater
8651
Points
burninater 09/28/13 - 07:17 pm
2
4
"The fact of the matter is

"The fact of the matter is that the President is the only person who can "shut down" the government. Whether it can theoretically be overriden is moot."
------
No, the fact that it can be overridden is NOT moot. This means that a President can only successfully veto an appropriation with the additional support of at least one-third of the sitting members of either chamber.

No President, despite your continued assertions, has the power to single-handedly shut down the gov't by Executive order. Even during the appropriations process, no President has the power to single-handedly shut down the gov't. This claimed power simply does not exist.

harley_52
21737
Points
harley_52 09/28/13 - 07:37 pm
3
2
"This claimed power simply does not exist."

It most certainly does. You know it does.

Why does the President, democrats in Congress, and the media keep talking about "shutting down the government?"

Can you name a single Republican, just one, who has said he/she wants to "shut down" the government?

They have offered the democrats current levels of funding for every single budget line EXCEPT Obamacare. The President and the Senate Majority Leader find this Unacceptable and threaten to "shut down" the government unless Republicans include Obamacare funding.

It is dictatorial, it is tyrannical.

The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility appropriate money for the Executive to spend as they (Congress) deems appropriate. The Constitution says "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law..." The House is the key to Appropriations, according to the Constitution.

The House has a Constitutional responsibility to decide what funds are to be appropriated and the President threatens to "shut down" the government because he doesn't like how they're doing it.

burninater
8651
Points
burninater 09/28/13 - 07:39 pm
2
4
This AGGREGATE power of

This AGGREGATE power of President plus at least one-third of either chamber is paralleled by the AGGREGATE power of a simple majority in either chamber refusing to pass an appropriations bill.

In both cases, an aggregate power exists to deny appropriations. It is not solely a power unique to the party of the sitting Executive.

harley_52
21737
Points
harley_52 09/28/13 - 07:40 pm
3
2
Burninater....

Who do you maintain has the power to "shut down" the government?

Are you suggesting Congress will pass a law shutting it down if Congress refuses to fund Obamacare?

Are you suggesting there is some pending law suit about to be seen by the Supreme Court that witll "shut down" the government if Obamacare isn't funded?

Be specific. What mechanism do you claim exists to "shut down" the government over Obamacare?

Try not to be negative or insulting, if possible.

harley_52
21737
Points
harley_52 09/28/13 - 07:43 pm
3
2
"This AGGREGATE power of President....

....plus at least one-third of either chamber is paralleled by the AGGREGATE power of a simple majority in either chamber refusing to pass an appropriations bill.

In both cases, an aggregate power exists to deny appropriations. It is not solely a power unique to the party of the sitting Executive."

Are you quoting, or inventing?

If you're quoting, please provide a cite.

If you're inventing, please admit it.

burninater
8651
Points
burninater 09/28/13 - 07:50 pm
2
4
"It most certainly does. You

"It most certainly does. You know it does."

Good grief. This isn't conjecture. A power of the Executive to singly shut down the gov't simply does not exist.

"The President and the Senate Majority Leader find this Unacceptable and threaten to "shut down" the government unless Republicans include Obamacare funding."

No, they threaten to veto an appropriations bill that refuses to fund a duly passed law, upheld as Constitutional. This is neither dictatorial, nor tyrannical. The majority of Americans respect the legislative process, and respect the Constitution. The strategy of the Republicans to circumvent the Constitutional legislative process by mooting a law through refused appropriations will be viewed as such, regardless of the attempts to argue this is not the case.

harley_52
21737
Points
harley_52 09/28/13 - 07:55 pm
3
2
"No, they threaten to veto an appropriations bill....

....No, they threaten to veto an appropriations bill that refuses to fund a duly passed law, upheld as Constitutional."

How about DOMA? How about current Immigration laws? Both were ignored by Obama even though he had plenty of funding appropriated and the law for both. Notwithstanding the law AND the funding, he refused to enforce them.

Only Obama controls whether the government is "shut down" if Obamacare isn't funded. You're finally wiggling around to where you almost admit it.

Why didn't you admit it an hour ago and save all this typing?

burninater
8651
Points
burninater 09/28/13 - 07:55 pm
2
4
"If you're quoting, please

"If you're quoting, please provide a cite. If you're inventing, please admit it."
-----
Harley, this is the legislative process as defined by the U.S. Constitution.

harley_52
21737
Points
harley_52 09/28/13 - 08:03 pm
3
2
"Harley, this is the legislative process....

....as defined by the U.S. Constitution."

Find me the language you invented in your 7:39 post.

I thoroughly understand the legislative process. None of it includes the power to "shut down" the government.

Only the President can make that decision.

Gage Creed
15303
Points
Gage Creed 09/28/13 - 08:07 pm
2
3
Greenbaum... √Ledo... You're

Greenbaum... √

Ledo... You're up next

Godoy... On deck

burninater
8651
Points
burninater 09/28/13 - 08:16 pm
3
3
How about DOMA? How about

How about DOMA? How about current Immigration laws? Both were ignored by Obama even though he had plenty of funding appropriated and the law for both. Notwithstanding the law AND the funding, he refused to enforce them.
------
It is established precedent, upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1800's, that a President may refuse to enforce a law he believes unconstitutional, as enforcing it would violate the Presidential Oath.

This practice dates all the way back to Pres. Jefferson.

This practice can be checked by a petition to the Supreme Court to settle the question of Constitutionality.

Back to Top

Loading...