By John Ruberry

For decades, probably since in the advent of rock and roll, America’s has been a youth-worshipping culture. In eastern Asia, at least for now, elders are admired and respected, on the other hand.

Back to America. Is it a coincidence that four years after Elvis Presley appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show with 82 percent of television viewers tuned in, the youthful John F. Kennedy became the youngest person elected to the presidency, replacing the oldest president up to that point, Dwight Eisenhower?

The Democrats found young pay dirt again in 1992 when Bill Clinton, the first baby-boomer president, who was 46, defeated incumbent president George H.W. Bush, age 68, and in 2008 when Barack Obama was 47 when he bested 72-year-old John McCain to win the presidency.

In this off-year election there are a couple of races I’ve noticed that may show the Democrats are betting that the fountain of youth is the key to winning a majority in Congress.

The first match-up already occurred. In the special election in Pennsylvania’s 18th congressional district, Democrat Conor Lamb, age 33, narrowly defeated GOPer Rick Saccone, age 60, for the vacant seat of Tim Murphy, who resigned because of a sex scandal.

Lamb won in a district that is traditionally a Republican stronghold.

Wisdom and experience should still count for something, right?

Democrats, at least on social media, are excited about the prospects of US Rep. Beto O’Rourke upsetting Republican Ted Cruz, a presidential candidate in 2016 who is still well-respected by conservatives despite his tussles that year with Trump. They’re about the same age, O’Rourke is 45 and Cruz is 47, but look how CNN is potrarying the candidates:

How long did it take the writer of that CNN article to find a photograph of Cruz with a double chin?

For his part, O’Rourke won his nomination in a primary while Lamb was selected by a party convention.

Whoah, O’Rourke is the dreamiest, isn’t he?

While good looks and youth don’t make anyone automatically stupid–my wife says I still have the former and I used to be young–I have a question: Why are the Democrats running glamour shot campaigns?

If their ideas are correct, shouldn’t that be enough?

On the flipside, Donald Trump, a 71-year-old with an orange comb-over, is our president. And the Democrats in the House are led by Nancy Pelosi, 78, but youngster Lamb says he will vote against Pelosi the next time there’s a vote for Democratic leader in the lower chamber.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Ted Cruz CPAC 2018

One of the things that makes being at CPAC very interesting, both from the standpoint of the average attendee and for a reporter and blogger is the fact that you never know when you are going to find yourself next to a person of provenance, an author you admire, a television personality, an activist you’ve seen on TV or a member of the house or senate or candidate for same.

Now in the old pre-gaylord days for a blogger like me, this was actually a lot easier, particularly for that final category, we bloggers were distinct from the MSM in our own area above the stage to the left as you’re facing it and if you were a GOP candidate or member of congress you made it a point to make the to bloggers row where you knew you had friends who would not only give you a fair hearing but would be delighted to speak to you.

With the move to National Harbor and the expansion of the number of bloggers that changed. Bloggers and the MSM media were now together rather than distinct in both our badges and our location meaning that while we were “elevated” in prestige, our access disappeared. Suddenly a GOP candidate or member of congress could no longer by our location in bloggers row where the MSM was not allowed (I have found memories of Maureen Dowd trying to get in and getting kicked out of the old bloggers row, yes we know who you are, get out!) or at a glance at our badges or selves know if we were friend or foe  and unless we had personal relationships with such people and their staffs we were locked out and thus had to stumble into such people by luck or skill or both.

This also complicates things for me as I like to interview a lot of attendees in my coverage who look at my badge see “media” and cringe if they don’t recognize or remember me.   (Yes folks there IS a reason why I always wear a hat, a twelve-foot scarf and carry cannoli)

Thus yesterday did I find myself after conducting interviews at the far end of Radio Row did I accidentally find myself next to Senator Ted Cruz just as he finished one interview and heading for the NRA TV area for another before going on stage.

As a rule I normally avoid scrums but as I was right there and quickly boxed in I decided to turn on my camera and start recording.

The Senator was answering questions from the media who had grabbed him first and I was quickly surrounded to the point that I wasn’t going anywhere so I looked for an opportunity to ask a question but couldn’t get one in as he slowly navigated the phalanx of fans and media to the NRA area.

At this point I had a decision to make, I was at the front of the barrier with a crowd behind me. I could work away and do something else or wait for the Senator to finish with the NRA and be in a good position to get in a question or two, as I had thought of question that fit my coverage I decided to wait it out and took the time to get in some decades of the Rosary (getting the daily 60 decades is a real problem when you are constantly on the go)

When the senator was finished he posed for a picture or two and he started moving toward the stage entrance area and his handlers were expertly moving people back, but the Senator recognized me, greeted me remembering my support and endorsement early in the campaign and being the man he is and also knowing I do walking interviews granted me a couple of questions as he walked to the stage entrance to the stage.

As always my question were designed to complement my coverage, My first question was to note the contrast I had seen in my interviews with CPAC 2017 attendees who were happy to have beaten Hillary but mixed on Donald Trump and this years’ attendees who if you have been watching my interviews have embraced him. I asked if had earned conservatives support and he listed the administration accomplishments that had done so.

His answer was concise enough for me to get in a second question so I asked him one of the question I’ve asked everyone this year, about the GOP chances for retaining the congress. His answer was pretty much that is was on them, if “we ” that is the congress did what we said we would the GOP voters would turn out, if not then not.

The video is here

Thus CPAC remains the place where with a little luck a mere blogger can score an exclusive, if short, interview with a key senator and player in Washington, but I have to give a lot of credit to the Senator. While he knew I was a public supporter of him very early who stuck with him till the day he pulled out, it was to no great advantage for him to give me that time. He knew it would likely not win him a single vote that he wasn’t about to wow on the stage. But he knew that for a person who makes his money and rep based on hits on the site and hits to DaTipJar that two minutes is invaluable and gave it to me.

You had better believe I’m not going to forget that anytime soon and I submit and suggest to any voters in Texas considering an alternative that if he will remember and reward the support of a blogger like myself, how much more will he remember the conservative who have supported him during the primaries and the voters of Texas who elected him by standing firm behind the conservative principles we embrace?

DaTechGuy at CPAC 2018 The story so far:

Friday Feb 23rd

Voices at CPAC 2018 Senator Ted Cruz Answers Two Question for DaTechGuy

Thurs Feb 22nd

We Interrupt CPAC 2018 for CNN and their Gun Control Galaxy Quest Moment
Voices of CPAC 2018: Ron from PA

Wed Feb. 21st

Voices at CPAC 2018 Vicki from Minnesota

Voices at (or near) #cpac2018 Lea from National Association of Developmental Educators We talk Students and Math

DaTechGuy at CPAC 2018 The Calm Before the Storm and What I’ll be Asking

If you don’t want to wait or my blog posts to see my interviews my youtube channel is here.

Full CPAC 2017 list (for those who feel nostalgic) is here

A reminder I have copies of my Book Hail Mary the perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer available at CPAC with me, price $7 and I will happily sign them for you.

Or you can just order it on Amazon

If you’d like to continue to support independent journalism, help defray the $140 a month extra I’ll need for my new hosting site) and think my CPAC 2018 reporting is worthwhile please consider hitting DaTipJar here.

Consider subscribing. 7 more subscribers at $20 a month will pay the monthly price for the new host/server.

Choose a Subscription level

Finally might I suggest my book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer makes an excellent Gift.

I really like credit cards. Every card in my wallet has purposes based upon rewards, limits, and due dates. The dollar bills in my wallet are probably the same bills I’ve had in there for weeks because I use cards for everything. Controlling expenditures and making certain my family is covered when life events pop up make credit cards an important tool in my fiscal planning.

The reason I don’t run into trouble with credit cards is that I never buy anything I couldn’t comfortably buy with money in the bank and I always pay in full before the statement is released. In the last decade, I could probably count on two hands (maybe one) the number of times I paid interest on a credit card balance. This is how credit cards are supposed to be used, in my humble opinion.

Where millions of Americans get into trouble from time to time is when they overextend themselves with their credit cards. Some look at their available credit as available cash to spend. Others calculate their monthly bills based upon the minimum payments on their cards and can’t wait until they pay the balances down to a point where they can spend on them again. Many lack disciple. Others lack knowledge. This is why otherwise responsible people around the country end up filing bankruptcy or some other form of debt relief.

Americans who are in trouble with credit card debt are each microcosms of the fiscal status of the United States federal government. Washington DC has been paying off credit cards with other credit cards, transferring balances when it doesn’t make sense, and manufacturing more credit cards because their old ones are maxed out. The interest alone on our $20 trillion debt is more than many countries’ GDPs. This is untenable and unsustainable.

When an individual gets into major credit trouble, the first thing they should do is stop spending on anything that’s not absolutely necessary. While I’m not a proponent of literally cutting up credit cards, it’s important for those with debt issues to pretend like there’s no money that can be spent on anything other than essentials while they do everything they can to pay down their balances.

We’re well past the time for the U.S. government to take the same approach. They need to tighten the belt in a big way and take the necessary actions to embrace fiscal responsibility for the first time in decades.

There’s a challenge with this. One of the reasons not mentioned above that some people get into deep credit card debt is addiction. There are those who are simply addicted to spending, shopping, buying, whatever. Even when they know they’re drowning in debt, they continue to make it harder to swim by continuing to spend. This is the problem with both major parties right now. They have this belief that if they go down the fiscally responsible route and start slashing the budget, they’re going to lose elections as a result. They feel they need to essentially buy votes by continuing to fund programs that are unnecessary. They believe they’ll gain votes by spending more of our tax dollars on departments, agencies, programs, and subsidies that get people pumped up because they’re the direct benefactors. A cruel but accurate way of presenting the current mentality of most DC politicians is that they think we’re all too stupid to understand the mess they’re building and we’re so simple that if they give us things, we’ll vote for them.

Ted Cruz demonstrated that this isn’t necessarily the case when he won the Iowa Republican Caucus. Most pundits thought he was dead in the water when he said he intended to pull the ethanol subsidies that helped many farmers in Iowa. Donald Trump and just about every other candidate doubled down on keeping the funds flowing in abundance, but Cruz said no. What did everyone other than Cruz get wrong about Iowa? They all thought the only way to get votes was to buy them. Iowans demonstrated that many Americans aren’t as simple-minded as politicians often think.

Unfortunately, that lesson will be marked down as an anomaly by the two major parties. The Democrats will push even further to the left in an effort to bring real socialism and even communist principles of government control over everything. The Republicans will continue to redefine “conservatism” by telling us it’s okay to spend more as long as the expenditures are justified. Of course, justification is easy for the GOP to manufacturer on pretty much any topic. That’s why they don’t have to blink when they attempt to replace Obamacare with Trumpcare. It’s why they can proudly accept Chuck Schumer’s and Donald Trump’s trillion-dollar infrastructure dreams. It’s why they scream loudly when they cut some budget from the EPA while hiding the asterisk in small print at the bottom that admits the money “saved” is simply being redirected to fund other programs.

I don’t recommend for individuals with credit card debt to literally cut up their credit cards because the scale is usually manageable and bankruptcy is an option when the scale is too large. However, I definitely recommend cutting up as many of the U.S. government’s credit cards as possible. They have too many and have demonstrated a complete inability to control themselves. It’s an addiction. They’re beyond the ability to even make the minimum payments which is why we’ve needed “stimulus” packages for the last two Presidents and we may see another one from the current President in the not-too-distant future.

Republicans are right in one regard. It’s time to redefine conservatism, just not the way many of them are hoping. Steve Deace over at Conservative Review brought some points to light in his article earlier this week titled “Needed: A new conservatism.” One of the things he touched on was the Federalist Party, of which I am a part. Here’s what he said:

A wise man once said something about the foolishness of pouring new wine into old wineskins. After all, this country is a living example that once paradigms embrace corruption, independence from the corruption must be declared, whether it is the Pilgrims fleeing corruption on the Mayflower or the Founding Fathers loading their muskets to stand up to it. Therefore, as students of history, if we’re going to spend years changing the paradigm, choose the strategy history says has the best chance of success — something new. Besides, wasn’t the Republican Party itself originally founded by those who fled the corruption within its predecessor, the Whig Party? This is the rationale behind the effort to launch the Federalist Party.

With the GOP in full control in DC, one of two things needs to happen. Either they get their act together and start reining in the power, bureaucracy, and out-of-control budgets that have been growing incessantly for decades or they need to admit they’re no longer a party that embraces smaller government. Unless things turn around very quickly, the latter is the only viable possibility. We know they won’t admit it, but the real question is whether or not conservatives are going to call them out on it or continue to fall for the same tired sales pitch.

On Day one of CPAC while working in the Hotel Lobby I met Yvonne from Chicago who gave me a long interview.

Her story which took her from considering “Never Trump” to being an Illinois coordinator for the Trump campaign is not only interesting but to this writing is the greatest swing of any of the people I’ve interviewed as of this writing (5:30 AM Tuesday).

By an odd coincidence I ran into Wjj Hodge just after the interview, he had already registered and suggested lunch and invited Yvonne to join us, as media registration had begun I asked if William would wait a moment while I check in & Yvonne left to do the same. Her line was long & at the suggestion of the CPAC volunteers she decided to wait in it in case we came back to a longer one. The media line was very long (although not as long as hers) so I headed back to William and that’s where I met Michael from Chicago whose wife and run for congress and while like Yvonne was a Cruz supporter in the primaries had a much easier transition to Donald Trump.

He joined us for lunch instead and by the time it was over he became, in addition to an occasional contributor for the American Thinker the latest member of DaTechGuy’s ever growing Magnificent Seven. I’m thinking alternate Monday’s to Michigan Mick.

DaTechGuy at CPAC 2017 (all videos not blogged about yet here)


Voices of CPAC 2017 Joe on Life behind the Berlin Wall


Voices at CPAC 2017 Liz a Cook County Republican (and Kasich delegate)
CPAC 2017 First Interviews Theresa an Attendee and Rob Eno of Conservative Review

Some Quick pre-cpac video and thoughts

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

If you like the work I have done at CPAC and wish to support it (along with paying for the ER & Surgery bills for DaWife’s illness that our insurance doesn’t anymore (thanks Democrats and Obamacare!) please consider hitting DaTipJar

Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. You can be listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog for as little as $2 a week. If only 130 of the 209K+ unique visitors who came in 2016 .07% subscribed at the same levels as our current subscription base we would make our current annual goal with ease. If we could boost that number to 260 I could afford to cover major events in person all over the country.

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.

Choose a Subscription level


Two words: Supreme Court. That’s why many people voted for Donald Trump.

Trump should have the opportunity to replace at least three justices on the court over the next four years, including the Scalia vacancy, possibly the irritating Darth Vader Ginsburg and the wobbly Anthony Kennedy. It’s conceivable that liberal Stephen Breyer might call it quits, too.

Since the Democrats will undoubtedly fight many of the administration’s policies in the courts, these choices will prove not only important during the Trump years but far beyond them.

As a result, it is important for Trump to choose outside of the usual ranks of the judiciary. Eight of the justices come from the bench; only Elena Kagan does not.

Some of the recent choices from the judiciary by Republicans have not proven reliable. For example, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a neck-snapping decision in support of Obamacare. Kennedy joins the liberals when it comes to social issues involving abortion and same-sex marriages. Perhaps the worst example of a Republican appointment was David Souter, who was selected by George H. W. Bush as a bedrock conservative and joined the liberal side of the bench after a few years.

A conservative bench also could look back on some of the wrong-headed decisions from recent years, including Obamacare. Even more important would be the possibility of a case to overturn Roe v. Wade.

It’s worth noting that more than 100 federal judgeships are also waiting to be filled.

One suggestion: appoint Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court. Although Trump and Cruz may not have gotten along during the 2016 campaign, the Texas Republican has a significant track record as a conservative.

He has argued more cases before the court than any other member of Congress, including positions to uphold the right to bear arms and religious freedom.

I supported Cruz for president and am pleased to support his nomination to the court. His selection would assuage the doubts of many conservatives who voted for Trump.

Update: I called the presidential election correctly in Pennsylvania in my last post, but I got the Senate race wrong. My apologies to Pat Toomey!

Christopher Harper is a recovering journalist who worked for The Associated Press, Newsweek, ABC News and The Washington Times and teaches media law.


There has been a bit of a buzz concerning Hillary Clinton appropriating the words of Ted Cruz’s speech at the RNC convention.

I think those words of Hillary’s are interesting: “Ted Cruz was right. In this election do the right thing vote your conscience”

Well progressives you heard her.

If your progressive conscience objects to people swimming in special interest money, Listen to Hillary. Do the right thing, vote your conscience, vote for Dr. Jill Stein

If your progressive conscience objects to candidates who not only take huge money to speak before organizations like Goldman Sacks but won’t release the transcripts of those speeches Listen to Hillary Do the right thing, vote your conscience, vote for Dr. Jill Stein.

If your progressive conscience objects to candidates who voted for and supported the Iraq War, Listen to Hillary Do the right thing, vote your conscience, vote for Dr. Jill Stein.

If your progressive conscience objects to candidates and their allies who conspires to smear progressive like Bernie Sanders and manipulate votes in states like Iowa for their advantage. Listen to Hillary Do the right thing, vote your conscience, vote for Dr. Jill Stein.

If your progressive conscience objects to a candidate who was, at best careless with classified information Listen to Hillary Do the right thing, vote your conscience, vote for Dr. Jill Stein.

If your progressive conscience objects to candidates who given the chance to choose a progressive diverse candidate as a running mate selects a while male insider who calls himself pro-life Listen to Hillary Do the right thing, vote your conscience, vote for Dr. Jill Stein.

If your progressive conscience objects says that as a person who worked so hard for Bernie and the progressive ideal that you simply can see yourself voting for Hillary, Listen to Hillary Do the right thing, vote your conscience, vote for Dr. Jill Stein.

Well personally I think if Hillary Clinton is so insistent that progressives vote their conscience who am I to say otherwise?

If you read my morning post you know that in my opinion Ted Cruz’s speech at the Republican Convention was the only honorable response for him in this situation and I applaud him for it.

However you might noticed that while I think Ted Cruz was totally justified in what he said at and after the speech as you can see by the title of this post I think Donald Trump played Ted Cruz and won, and I would even say won brilliantly.

The reason is apparent when you ask a very basic question:

What advantage does Donald Trump get with a Ted Cruz endorsement?

The answer is almost none.

Donald Trump spent the entire campaign (falsely) referring to Ted Cruz as “lying Ted”, the media, which hates Ted Cruz MUCH more than they do Trump and have been attacking him since the day he was elected, played it up a year.  He would get no love from the GOP establishment which hates Ted Cruz as much as the media does from an endorsement and the number of NeverTrump people from the GOP who would vote for Trump after a Cruz endorsement is so minimal that it’s not worth thinking of.

In fact a Ted Cruz endorsement might even HURT Trump who is still trying to win over Bernie Sanders fans who believe Ted Cruz is the devil and seriously could you imagine the gift to Hillary Clinton a Ted Cruz endorsement would be?  I can see the ad now:

Mythical Cruz Endorsement speech:  “Donald Trump is a great leader”

Cut to old Donald Trump “We call him lying Ted”

Mythical Cruz Endorsement speech “Donald trump will make America Great again”

Cut to old Donald Trump speech: “He lies lies and lies”

I’m Hillary Clinton & I approve this message

Donald Trump knows media and knows visuals, he isn’t dumb enough to let this happen.

There is also no advantage for NOT having Ted Cruz speak.  He won 11 states and made a strong case if he was denied a speaking spot or stayed away it would draw into question the “Big Tent” business and “party unity” meme that Trump was playing on.  There is no visual no media no nothing.  Nothing at all, no advantage.

Instead consider what we saw at the GOP convention last night.

Images of the delegates on the GOP floor booing Cruz in support of Trump

A contrast between Cruz’s attack and the pro-trump speech from Mike Pence (who endorsed Cruz before the Indiana primary) causing Cruz grief from all over.

A contrast between Cruz’s “attack” and people reporting Trump thought Cruz’s non-endorsement was “No Big deal

(Even as I type this Rudy Giuliani was on MSNBC calling Trump the “bigger man”.)

And reporter after reporter talking down Ted Cruz both that night and even the next day

And remember all of this is taking place with a GOP convention that is drawing millions more viewers than usual and sets up tonight as an even bigger potential TV audience.

And doesn’t even take into account all the social media radio etc this generated or the fact that it took MSM attempt to go wild Meliana “plagiarism” business off the tube.

All this was made possible because Trump is good at reading people.  He understands who Ted Cruz is and knew that despite all that “lying Ted” BS that Cruz is an honorable man and used that to his advantage.

Trump also knows media, he knows the audience and played to them manipulating the situation, the visuals and the media because he understands that the audience for any counter argument will be only a tiny percentage of this and consists mostly of political geeks like you and me dear reader.  If Mitt Romney had 1/10 of the Trump media savvy he’d be president today.  It was absolutely brilliant.

And remember each of these conflicts at the convention that the MSM thinks are so damaging helped build audience to draw people who would normally never watch this stuff and give Trump free access to make his case.

And now that Bernie has dropped out what drama is there in the Democrat convention?  What person who has not already made up their mind will be watching it?


Trump won the case and the night and will likely win the competing conventions even with the MSM doing all they can to knock him off and prop up Hillary.  Furthermore his actions maximize the potential vote increase from persuadable voters while keeping any damage localized to voters he had already likely lost.

You can debate Trump and his morality all day and all of the night but in my opinion this is pure LBJ class political genius.

And I submit and suggest that’s not debatable .

One final thing, the fact that Ted Cruz did the right thing and deserves praise rather than blowback he is getting is totally irrelevant to this analysis, but it all comes down to what matters most as this tweet says:

I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar

Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.

Choose a Subscription level

Mr. Scratch (the devil): [whispering to Webster while he writes his speech] Listen, Black Daniel, you’re wasting your time writing speeches like that. Why worry about the people and their problems? Think of your own. You want to be president of this country, don’t you? And you ought to be! Inauguration Day parade: Bands playing, horses prancing, the sun shining on the stars and stripes waving in the breeze, crowds cheering ‘Daniel Webster, President of the United States of America!’ Don’t be a fool. Stop bothering with that speech and get busy promoting yourself…
Daniel Webster: BE STILL!

The Devil & Daniel Webster 1941

As regular readers of this blog know I’m a Ted Cruz fan. I endorsed him early, supported him through the primaries and was very disappointed that the GOP choose Donald Trump over him.

As regular readers of this blog also know two weeks ago I endorsed Donald Trump citing the danger of electing Hillary and normalizing the efforts of the left to use the IRS and various arms of government to oppress religious and political conservatives. I also stated that if we reward the Corruption of Hillary Clinton with the presidency we would get more of it.

Yesterday Ted Cruz went before the convention to make the speech that being the runner up in a seventeen person field and winning nearly 20 state, he was entitled to make. On the meat of the speech I’ll say nothing because we all know where Ted stands and always had. What I will talk about is the choice he had to make: Would he endorse Donald Trump or not.

Ted Cruz is a young and talented man, there is little doubt that he would be a formidable candidate in the future.

Ted Cruz is also a knowledgeable man, he is quite aware of what Hillary Clinton is and what her election would mean.

Ted Cruz is also a man who knows how to think strategically. Regardless of what some have said an Endorsement of Trump, while disappointing to some would have a lot of upside:

If Trump lost he would be able to count on help from Trump supporters, particularly if he went out on the stump or employed his grassroots team, the type of team that Trump needs right now.

If Trump won, there was always 2024 or 2020 if Trump decided to serve only one term (which I think is likely) and if he helped getting the immigration and ISIS plans of a Trump admin through the senate he could rightly take credit for the results.

Yet if he failed to endorse, he would not only have caused an uproar among trump supporters, but he would ensure that a billionaire and his children would have a chip on their shoulder and the money to spend on many more to destroy any such Ted Cruz run for president.

Against all that upside (and avoiding down side) what was the downside?

Just this.

He would have to betray his family.

If the only thing Ted Cruz had to worry about the false “lying Ted” business I suspect he would have let it go and endorsed Trump.

But Trump and his team slandered Ted Cruz’s father and insulted his wife and did so publicly, and Ted Cruz is half Italian.

To my knowledge Trump has not apologized either publicly or privately If he had then perhaps Cruz could have let it go.

But to publicly endorse Trump would have sent a message to his daughters, that their mother and grandfather meant less to their father than his ambitions.

What man who respects his father and loves his wife and daughters could do such a thing?

A lot of pundits think Ted Cruz’s non endorsement was about ambition, they were right.

It was his ambition to be loyal to his wife and married to her till death do them part and his ambition to teach his children that family trumps power.

That fact that people don’t realize this, the fact that they think it’s about his next run for the White House, frankly says more about those who think this than it does about him.

It might not have been the right thing for the party and you might even make the case that it wasn’t the right thing for his country, but it was the right thing for his wife, his father and his daughters and that’s the first duty of a husband.

Exit question:  Given my opinion you might wonder why was I willing to endorse Mr. Trump, that’s rather easy.  It was not my wife & father that were slandered, thus I am in a position to be more pragmatic and allow the danger of Hillary Clinton to both the country and my family to override my personal honor.

If it had been my wife & father, no power on earth could have prevented me from decking him, let alone getting an endorsement. After all Ted Cruz is only part Italian, I’m a full blooded Sicilian.

Closing thought 1.  Donald Trump is lucky this didn’t happen in the election of 1816 instead of 2016.  If it had I suspect Cruz would have called him out and shot him.

Closing thought 2:  All this being said, Trump knowing what was coming, handled the situation brilliantly and to maximum effect, but that’s a later post.

Update: I think Ted put it perfect here

“I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and my father. And that pledge was not a blanket commitment that if you slander and attack Heidi that I’m going to nonetheless come like a servile puppy dog and say ‘thank you very much for maligning my wife and maligning my father’.”

I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar

Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.

Choose a Subscription level

by baldilocks

Right, duty, whatever one wants to call it, I voted today in the California Primary Election. No Party Preference, crossover ballot—Republican. Who did I vote for? Ted Cruz. I figured that readers would want to know.

I first registered as a Republican immediately after the 2000 General Election in which I voted for a Republican picardelectionmemecandidate for president for the first time. This was after a decade-long exploration of the two major political parties and paying closer attention to current events than I had done before that period. Back then, I remained a registered as a Democrat on purpose until after I voted in order to send a tiny message to the party whose principles bore no resemblance to my own. Sixteen years later, the circumstances are similar: this was my first vote as an independent. We’ll see what happens next.

One of my real-life friends tells me that Hillary and Bill Clinton are in town, holding a rally a quick bus ride from my apartment, among other places in LA.

Hillary Clinton is holding multiple campaign events across Southern California on Monday, the eve of the California presidential primary.

Clinton attended a “Get out the Vote” rally at La Fachada Plaza Mexico in Lynwood. Then, she headed to Leimert Park Village Plaza for another rally, followed by an event at Long Beach Community College. The former secretary of state will then head to the Greek Theatre for a concert later in the evening.

The concert will feature singers Christina Aguilera, John Legend and Stevie Wonder.

Clinton has reached the number of delegates and superdelegates needed to win the Democratic nomination, according to an Associated Press survey of delegates.

I get my hair trimmed at a shop about two blocks from Leimert Park and was considering going for a clean-up cut today. Glad I found out about the Clinton event beforehand. Traffic makes me nuts—even when I’m not driving. So do Leftists.

Oh, have I mentioned that my hair is about an inch long? Not so baldilocks anymore. A lot grayer, though.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>baldilocks

The Obama administration’s national security fabulist, Ben Rhodes, has

succeeded in remaking the Middle East to empower America’s most hated enemy, the only United Nations member state committed to the annihilation of another state: the theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran.

Among the so-called moderates Rhodes would name in his sales pitch was Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani, the man who the late Argentinian prosecutor Alberto Nisman accused of being directly involved in planning the July 1994 terror attack on the AMIA Jewish Center in Buenos Aires.

Rhodes’s revelation came from a New York Times interview that was published almost on the same day that Iran’s Brigadier General Ali Abdollahi declared that his country had successfully tested a medium-range (2,000 km, or 1,240 miles) ballistic missile for a clear purpose,

“The reason we designed our missiles with a range of 2,000 km is to be able to hit our enemy the Zionist regime from a safe distance,”

Today Ted Cruz writes of The Mullahs and Their Missiles,

To give credit where credit is due, the regime in Tehran has been frank and open about its continued hostility toward America and Israel. In the months since the Obama administration and the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany (the group commonly referred to as the “P5 + 1”) concluded the deal with Iran called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Revolutionary Guards have tested at least four ballistic missiles. Flush with the $100 billion they claim to be getting in assets unfrozen under the deal, the mullahs have gone on a spending spree, finally purchasing, among other things, the Russian S-300 missile system, which is now being delivered to them.

Cruz states (emphasis added),

The mullahs’ policy is, by their own admission, unchanged. It is the same one that inspired the so-called revolutionaries of 1979 to take 52 Americans as hostages for 444 days, and motivated murderous attacks on Israelis and Americans from Buenos Aires to Beirut to Baghdad over the subsequent decades. The only thing that is changing now is the potential scale of this violence, as they seek to replace truck bombs and roadside explosive devices with the most destructive weapons on the planet and the means to deliver them.

The sensible thing to do now is to face this reality, however unpleasant it may be, and do what we can to bolster our defenses and those of our allies.

In this period where a President is pursuing a legacy no matter the cost, facing reality may be the toughest stance of all.

Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S, and Latin American politics, news, and culture at Fausta’s Blog. You can find her posts on Iran’s increasing presence in our hemisphere during the last decade here.