A couple days ago, Hillary Clinton earned the endorsement of U.S. Rep. David Price of the 4th district. Now, another member of the NC congressional delegation has chosen a candidate. This time the endorser is Rep. Mark Meadows, the anti-establishment congressman from the mountains, and the endorsee is Ted Cruz. Meadows made it official on the Greta Van Susteren show.
Meadows’ endorsement of Cruz is not a surprise. Meadows is a member of the House Freedom Caucus, and has attended several rallies with the Texas senator in the past. And while Cruz is not the most popular fellow among his fellow members of Congress, Meadows says that’s actually a strength.
Meadows, you might remember, played a key role in the ousting of John Boehner from the Speaker position. His endorsement of Cruz just ahead of the Iowa caucus lends the senator even more anti-establishment credibility.
In addition to saying kind words about Cruz, the Eleventh District congressman called the decision by frontrunner Donald Trump to skip tonight’s debate a “mistake.” That remains to be seen. The normal laws of political campaigns says skipping a debate just ahead of a competitive election is a bad thing. But who knows, maybe it will be a boost for Trump. Going forward, if the billionaire businessman wins Iowa by a convincing margin, Cruz’s path to victory erodes tremendously.
Here’s the updated endorsement list from our congressional delegation:
G.K. Butterfield – Hillary Clinton
Walter Jones – Rand Paul
David Price – Hillary Clinton
Patrick McHenry – Jeb Bush
Mark Meadows – Ted Cruz
You’ll notice most of our delegation hasn’t endorsed anybody. By the way – and this is totally irrelevant to the topic – it might not be a bad idea for Renee Ellmers to come out for Donald Trump or Ted Cruz right about now. Just saying.
John Wynne is the “conservative voice” at PoliticsNC, where he also provides polling analysis and commentary on legislative campaigns. When not writing about politics, he enjoys gardening and listening to opera. Contact: johncwynne@gmail.com.
Judging that some action is positive or negative on single criteria is narrow-minded thinking and the stuff of partisanship. Example: viewing the compromise that led to the appropriation sequestration of 2011 as positive when it reduced the deficit.
That view is blind to the fact that the sequestration compromise forced agencies into spending cuts at a time when better-funded agency programs could have helped the economy and American people rebound more quickly and strongly from a bad recession.
So is a particular compromise good or bad? It’s in the eyes of the beholding partisan.
But the better question is a little different. And that is: Is SEEKING compromise, as a process of governance, good or bad? The answer is that making the effort to reach compromise on a contentious issue is always a good thing—-even though that notion has clearly become heresy among some political factions, and seems to make one-issue, myopic noise-makers like Grover Norquist howl in disgust.
A.L., when one praises both sides for a compromise, that’s NONpartisan. When one criticizes both sides for a compromise, that’s also NONpartisan. You may disagree with the praise or the criticism, but when you consistently praise one side and blame the other–now that’s PARTISAN.
“What a partisan spin.” Followed by lengthy and thick partisan spin.
OMG……..still laughing. Some here have a future doing stand-up!
I couldn’t agree more with your take on Neoconservatives, especially as it relates to their claim to Christianity. Mind-boggling the level of hypocrisy! I, personally, have tried to approach political polarization from an objective standpoint, in an honest effort to understand why conservatives and liberals can BOTH claim the moral high ground on social issues. The best book I have found on this subject is “Moral Politics” by George Lakoff:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226467716?keywords=moral%20politics%20how%20liberals%20and%20conservatives%20think&qid=1454106783&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1
If anyone else would choose to read it, it will open your eyes to the two different mindsets.
So you have “tried to understand political polarization from an objective standpoint” yet you accuse “neoconservatives” of “mind boggling” hypocrisy? Wow, that sure doesn’t sound like an objective attempt to understand anything. Just more idealogical invective..
If you read books, read this one. You might have a better understanding of polarization and the danger it poses for our democracy (if you care).
Some just cannot counter a point without changing the subject or the individuals under discussion. Lame.
And thanks, Nortley, for debunking the lie that Obama hasn’t been willing to compromise—- unlike those who never offered an alternative to ACA, or to the immigration bill that passed the Senate, or to enhanced gun-control background checking, or to….oh, never mind….the list of things never negotiated or run through the legislative process due to GOP intransigence is too long.
President Obama compromised many times on the ACA alone. He quickly dumped any support for a public option and other aspects all in a an attempt to win the support of Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Despite these compromises neither of them, or any other Republican for that matter voted for the ACA.
In fact, the whole ACA was a compromise from the start. A single payer system was never given any serious consideration rather Obama decided to meet Republicans on their territory by going along with a plan that was remarkably similar to the one proposed by the Heritage Foundation and then President Richard Nixon. It was also similar to the alternative Republicans wanted to the Clinton plan,
Then there was President Obama agreeing to make the Bush tax cuts permanent as a compromise with Republicans, etc. etc.
If there has been any refusal to compromise it has been from the Republicans. John Boehner was held captive by harsh and rigid idealogues like Mark Meadows who see any give on any issue as surrender.
What a partisan spin. The ACA was passed without a single Republican vote. There has been no other major piece of legislation to pass the Congress in recent times without some bipartisan support. And the ACA was passed through a little used parliamentary procedure that bypassed regular order.
Unfortunately, it was the Congressional Republicans who made a major compromise recently by agreeing to lift the spending caps agreed to by both parties in 2011. As a result, the federal budget deficit is again on the rise.
Senate Republicans compromised with the President and liberal Democrats in passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the last Congress. Fortunately, conservatives in the House held firm against amnesty and a path to citizenship for millions residing here illegally.
The ACA passed without a single Republican vote despite it being watered down in an effor to get bipartisan support. That watering it down made it very similar to Republican proposals going back years, from the Heritage Foundation and Richard Nixon as well as the plan supported and enacted into law by the party’s 2012 nominee for president Mitt Romeny.
The Clinton budget in 1993 passed without a single Republican vote mainly because it raised taxes on the wealthy. A budget is a “major piece of legislation” so your claim is untrue.
A handful of Senate Republicans may have worked in immigration reform but it was John Boeher who refused to allow the deal to even come up for a vote in the House. Too bad he didn’t before he resigned and he would have had something to show for his failed speakership.
I find it fascinating that so many Republicans praise Ronald Reagan as some kind of saint when he provided the undocumented with amnesty and even called it amnesty. Now the party gets outraged over any proposal that hints at amnesty which is why John McCain and Marco Rubio have run so fast from their proposals.
The above post is mine. I made a good when putting in my screen name info and it was not an attempt at sock puppetry. Apologies
So only Democrats pass legislation without bipartisan support–twice in the past 50 years? And a budget has to be renewed every year, the ACA is permanent until repealed. That’s an apples to autos comparison.
The country learned a major lesson from Reagan’s amnesty program that failed to secure our borders. The more we relax out immigration laws, the more immigrants come here illegally. The GOP will not allow a comprehensive immigration bill to pass until it is clear that our borders are secure and illegal immigration is reduced to a trickle.
So Ebrun, is compromise good or bad? You seem to imply that Obama won’t compromise with Republicans, so I assume if he DID, that would be good in your eyes. Yet, when Republicans compromised with Obama, that was bad. You are just as partisan and one-sided as you accuse others of being.
Is compromise good or bad? IMO, it depends on the substance. The Sequestration compromise in the 2011 Budget Control Act had a positive impact by reducing, if ever so incrementally, the federal budget deficit. The recent compromise that lifted some of the spending restraints required by sequestration is already causing the projected federal budget deficit to rise again. Almost all Congressional Democrats and many Republicans are responsible for the negative impact of this compromise.
I am no more partisan than most liberals who comment here and don’t deny it as many others do. And if its “partisan” to challenge misinformation and counter biased claims, that’s the nature of political debate. This blog would become quite insipid if no one took exception to the left wing ideology routinely posted here.
It’s not surprising that Meadows will support Cruz. But it will be much more interesting to see if he (Meadows) supports the re election of Richard Burr or goes whole hog over to the far right and supports Greg Brannon.
Saying “Cruz is not the most popular fellow among his fellow members of Congress” is understatement. From everything I’ve read, the guy is anathema in private political circles, including within in the GOP.
“Meadows says that’s actually a strength”? Sure, right, just what America needs. A leader that turns the stomach of colleagues he works with, whose personal-skills toolkit doesn’t include the desire nor ability to seek compromise, who detest federal agencies and institutions because, well, Obama, and who views the establishment, including the full faith and credit of the nation’s fiscal house, as a thing that must be taken down. Yeah, just what we need.
Slate.com’s headline labeled Palin’s endorsement of Trump as “Hot News Endorses Dumpster Fire.” I am not that creative, so I’ll simply suggest that this one could be headlined “Rightist endorses Reactionary.”
A leader “…whose personal-skills toolkit doesn’t include the desire nor ability to seek compromise…”? Geez, for a minute there I thought you were talking about our President.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/compromise/
Dumb endorses Dumbest. The GOP Clown Car keeps chuggin’ down the track.