Ted Cruz is Brilliant

[JohnStOnge]

At least according to Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. I'd been meaning to look this up since I heard about Dershowitz talking about Cruz on the radio. And here it is at http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists ... d_Law.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; among a series of answers to what Dershowitz thinks of famous people he taught:

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas): "Off-the-charts brilliant. And you know, liberals make the terrible mistake, including some of my friends and colleagues, of thinking that all conservatives are dumb. And I think one of the reasons that conservatives have been beating liberals in the courts and in public debates is because we underestimate them. Never underestimate Ted Cruz. He is off-the-chart brilliant. I don't agree with his politics."

It's just too bad Cruz isn't telegenic. That, I think, is a lot more important in today's politics than being brilliant is.

[Ivytalk]

And Nixon was probably smarter than Kennedy, but lost the 1960 election because he sweated on camera during that televised debate. We'll never know.

Brains don't always make for an effective President. Look at Obama. And Clinton may have had the firmest grasp of policy matters of any President in our lifetimes, but had a weakness for BJs and lying under oath.

As for Cruz, his Presidential ambitions will be scuttled by goofiness and arrogance. That "Green Eggs and Ham" filibuster will do him in.

[kalm]

And Nixon was probably smarter than Kennedy, but lost the 1960 election because he sweated on camera during that televised debate. We'll never know.

Brains don't always make for an effective President. Look at Obama. And Clinton may have had the firmest grasp of policy matters of any President in our lifetimes, but had a weakness for BJs and lying under oath.

As for Cruz, his Presidential ambitions will be scuttled by goofiness and arrogance. That "Green Eggs and Ham" filibuster will do him in.

Among many other things.

Nixon was brilliant and I think Dick Cheney is as well. But Cruz...

Ultimately, though, the most damning evidence against Cruz’s intelligence may actually come from his law school roommate and college debating partner, David Panton. “Ted’s views today politically are almost identical to when I met him,” Panton said. “There’s nothing he says today that I didn’t hear in college.” That assessment, spoken about anybody, should be convincing enough evidence for shallowness of mind. Can there be such thing as a learned person who has discovered nothing new since freshman year?

In fact, the stories about Cruz’s younger days show the marks of someone profoundly insecure about his intelligence. Quizzing others as to their SAT scores, wanting to limit his law-school study group to graduates of the “H-Y-P” schools (a charge Cruz has denied), an unrelenting and discomforting argumentative aggression: He’s missing only a Mensa application to complete the full package of desperate IQ-dork self-affirmations.

Of course, a chorus of people from Cruz’s student years has vouched for his brilliance. No less a heavyweight than Alan Dershowitz has commented on Cruz’s precocity at Harvard. Now, one could somewhat unkindly argue that Dershowitz, too, has in his career relied on people’s confusion of credentials and bluster for depth of intellect. More to the point, though, is that the evidence put forth doesn’t support the claim. Nobody doubts that Cruz has the gift of gab, and can be formidable in an argument. But sophistry is not philosophy, and being the loudest, most driven, and most shameless guy in the room does not necessarily make one the brightest.

Any definition of intelligence is destined to be highly contestable. Yet it is hard to imagine a plausible one that does not include large measures of critical thinking and self-scrutiny. As Bertrand Russell put it, it’s always a central problem that “the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” Intelligence necessitates doubt, for doubt is the origin of wisdom. One whose mind is clamped shut cannot be intelligent, and yet Ted Cruz does not in his life ever seem to have taken on board a single challenge to his worldview.

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/28/the_ted ... dangerous/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Smarter than Roy Moore and Louie Gohmert…but not by much. Swing and a miss here, John.

[GannonFan]

And Nixon was probably smarter than Kennedy, but lost the 1960 election because he sweated on camera during that televised debate. We'll never know.

Brains don't always make for an effective President. Look at Obama. And Clinton may have had the firmest grasp of policy matters of any President in our lifetimes, but had a weakness for BJs and lying under oath.

As for Cruz, his Presidential ambitions will be scuttled by goofiness and arrogance. That "Green Eggs and Ham" filibuster will do him in.

I agree, Cruz is an exceedingly smart and intelligent person with a great academic track record. And that's what makes it even more sad when he opens his mouth and says some of the ridiculous and whacky things that he does say. Being really smart apparently doesn't prevent someone from saying really stupid things.

[houndawg]

At least according to Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. I'd been meaning to look this up since I heard about Dershowitz talking about Cruz on the radio. And here it is at http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists ... d_Law.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; among a series of answers to what Dershowitz thinks of famous people he taught:

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas): "Off-the-charts brilliant. And you know, liberals make the terrible mistake, including some of my friends and colleagues, of thinking that all conservatives are dumb. And I think one of the reasons that conservatives have been beating liberals in the courts and in public debates is because we underestimate them. Never underestimate Ted Cruz. He is off-the-chart brilliant. I don't agree with his politics."

It's just too bad Cruz isn't telegenic. That, I think, is a lot more important in today's politics than being brilliant is.

Wow. You sure are observant.

[Baldy]

And Nixon was probably smarter than Kennedy, but lost the 1960 election because he sweated on camera during that televised debate. We'll never know.

Brains don't always make for an effective President. Look at Obama. And Clinton may have had the firmest grasp of policy matters of any President in our lifetimes, but had a weakness for BJs and lying under oath.

As for Cruz, his Presidential ambitions will be scuttled by goofiness and arrogance. That "Green Eggs and Ham" filibuster will do him in.

Among many other things.

Nixon was brilliant and I think Dick Cheney is as well. But Cruz...

Ultimately, though, the most damning evidence against Cruz’s intelligence may actually come from his law school roommate and college debating partner, David Panton. “Ted’s views today politically are almost identical to when I met him,” Panton said. “There’s nothing he says today that I didn’t hear in college.” That assessment, spoken about anybody, should be convincing enough evidence for shallowness of mind. Can there be such thing as a learned person who has discovered nothing new since freshman year?

In fact, the stories about Cruz’s younger days show the marks of someone profoundly insecure about his intelligence. Quizzing others as to their SAT scores, wanting to limit his law-school study group to graduates of the “H-Y-P” schools (a charge Cruz has denied), an unrelenting and discomforting argumentative aggression: He’s missing only a Mensa application to complete the full package of desperate IQ-dork self-affirmations.

Of course, a chorus of people from Cruz’s student years has vouched for his brilliance. No less a heavyweight than Alan Dershowitz has commented on Cruz’s precocity at Harvard. Now, one could somewhat unkindly argue that Dershowitz, too, has in his career relied on people’s confusion of credentials and bluster for depth of intellect. More to the point, though, is that the evidence put forth doesn’t support the claim. Nobody doubts that Cruz has the gift of gab, and can be formidable in an argument. But sophistry is not philosophy, and being the loudest, most driven, and most shameless guy in the room does not necessarily make one the brightest.

Any definition of intelligence is destined to be highly contestable. Yet it is hard to imagine a plausible one that does not include large measures of critical thinking and self-scrutiny. As Bertrand Russell put it, it’s always a central problem that “the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” Intelligence necessitates doubt, for doubt is the origin of wisdom. One whose mind is clamped shut cannot be intelligent, and yet Ted Cruz does not in his life ever seem to have taken on board a single challenge to his worldview.

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/28/the_ted ... dangerous/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Smarter than Roy Moore and Louie Gohmert…but not by much. Swing and a miss here, John.

A hyper-partisan hit piece in a far left-wing digital rag, and klam soaks it in as Gospel word for word.
Sad.

[Ibanez]

Brilliant? Maybe. But that, in no way, means he's the best person to lead this country.

[Grizalltheway]

Brilliant? Maybe. But that, in no way, means he's the best person to lead this country.

C'mon, what's NOT brilliant about the earth being 6,000 years old and Jesus riding dinosaurs?

[Ibanez]

Brilliant? Maybe. But that, in no way, means he's the best person to lead this country.

C'mon, what's NOT brilliant about the earth being 6,000 years old and Jesus riding dinosaurs?

The guy does equate detente to surrender.

[houndawg]

Brilliant? Maybe. But that, in no way, means he's the best person to lead this country.

C'mon, what's NOT brilliant about the earth being 6,000 years old and Jesus riding dinosaurs?

Latest info suggests dinosaurs were tripping on ergot. No wonder they were around for 150 million years and never got anything done..

[JohnStOnge]

So, Kalm, the author of the article at http://www.salon.com/2014/07/28/the_ted ... dangerous/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; begins by talking about how even Cruz's enemies say he's smart.

Even Ted Cruz’s critics seem to concur on one point: whatever else you might say about him, the man is very smart. Mother Jones magazine has called him the “thinking man’s tea partier.” Josh Marshall, in a mostly withering assessment, made the same obligatory concession to his being an “incredibly bright guy.” Jeffrey Toobin’s recent, ostensibly critical New Yorker profile of Cruz is full of quotes about his being “the smartest guy in the room,” his “sophisticated” constitutional views, and the “extraordinary” erudition of his senior thesis.

But of course the author of the article knows better. What it comes down to is that the author of the article disagrees with him. And there's not a single real argument against Cruz being intelligent in the piece.

[JohnStOnge]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politic ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interviews with more than two dozen alumnae and professors fill in a portrait of Cruz, in Cambridge two decades ago, that would be fully recognizable to those who know him now in Washington. He made a lasting impression as someone both arrogant and pretentious, as well as someone unwilling to yield or compromise.

But he was also universally respected for his intellect, described by friend and foe alike as brilliant but with a hard edge.

“He never really had an off switch with his debater’s demeanor,” said Ted Ruger, who was president of the Harvard Law Review during Cruz’s third year. “We just realized that was the way a discussion with Ted was going to go. If you expected something different, you came away shaking your head.”

But of course that Salon author knows better because he KNOWS it's not possible to be both confident and intelligent. Oh no. No WAY that's going to happen.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW if the people who knew him and disagreed with him hadn't described him as brilliant I wouldn't automatically say that he's all that due to being accepted to Harvard Law School. That's because I'm pretty sure he'd be considered a member of an "under represented minority."

Also, I don't think he has the persona and social skills to be successful at the highest level of politics and he just does not have the look, voice, etc. Give him Ronald Reagan's skills in those areas and he'd be dangerous. But he doesn't have that. He doesn't look good on TV and he has a whiny sounding voice. Just nothing he can do to overcome that.

Too bad because he's right when he says that when you say you're going to do something when elected you should do it. You should have the guts to exercise some leadership and stick to your guns. If you run on saying you're going to defund the Affordable Care Act and get elected that's what you should try to do when you get elected.

He means what he says and he says what he means. We could use a lot more politicians like that.

[JohnStOnge]

Look at Obama. And Clinton may have had the firmest grasp of policy matters of any President in our lifetimes

I am honestly shocked that you would say that about Obama. To me he never had any clue as to what he's doing and has always been in way over his head. As I've said, to me we have a guy who is not qualified to manage a convenience store serving as Chief Executive of the United States. What he is, to me, is a telegenic face and a FM radio voice with no real "gravitas" as they say. I'm curious. What make you say he has such a firm grasp on policy matters?

[Ivytalk]

Look at Obama. And Clinton may have had the firmest grasp of policy matters of any President in our lifetimes

I am honestly shocked that you would say that about Obama. To me he never had any clue as to what he's doing and has always been in way over his head. As I've said, to me we have a guy who is not qualified to manage a convenience store serving as Chief Executive of the United States. What he is, to me, is a telegenic face and a FM radio voice with no real "gravitas" as they say. I'm curious. What make you say he has such a firm grasp on policy matters?

John, you misread my post. Read it again, and focus on the sentence immediately preceding "Look at Obama." Barry Soetoro is bored with policy questions. Clinton thrived on them.

[kalm]

BTW if the people who knew him and disagreed with him hadn't described him as brilliant I wouldn't automatically say that he's all that due to being accepted to Harvard Law School. That's because I'm pretty sure he'd be considered a member of an "under represented minority."

Also, I don't think he has the persona and social skills to be successful at the highest level of politics and he just does not have the look, voice, etc. Give him Ronald Reagan's skills in those areas and he'd be dangerous. But he doesn't have that. He doesn't look good on TV and he has a whiny sounding voice. Just nothing he can do to overcome that.

Too bad because he's right when he says that when you say you're going to do something when elected you should do it. You should have the guts to exercise some leadership and stick to your guns. If you run on saying you're going to defund the Affordable Care Act and get elected that's what you should try to do when you get elected.

He means what he says and he says what he means. We could use a lot more politicians like that.

Great! So he's as faithful as an elephant!

In 1992, the United Nations adopted Agenda 21 to “achieve a more efficient and equitable world economy,” outlining a process to eliminate environmental decay and social injustice through micromanaging industries, communities, and culture. They will meet again next year to discuss its “progress” in over 100 nations.
The originator of this grand scheme is George Soros, who candidly supports socialism and believes that global development must progress through eliminating national sovereignty and private property. He has given millions to this project. But he is not the only one promoting this plan; in fact, the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) now consists of over 600 cities in the United States.
Agenda 21 attempts to abolish “unsustainable” environments, including golf courses, grazing pastures, and paved roads. It hopes to leave mother earth’s surface unscratched by mankind. . . . Agenda 21 subverts liberty, our property rights, and our sovereignty.

'"Net Neutrality' is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government,"

Again…just not real smart.

[Baldy]

BTW if the people who knew him and disagreed with him hadn't described him as brilliant I wouldn't automatically say that he's all that due to being accepted to Harvard Law School. That's because I'm pretty sure he'd be considered a member of an "under represented minority."

Also, I don't think he has the persona and social skills to be successful at the highest level of politics and he just does not have the look, voice, etc. Give him Ronald Reagan's skills in those areas and he'd be dangerous. But he doesn't have that. He doesn't look good on TV and he has a whiny sounding voice. Just nothing he can do to overcome that.

Too bad because he's right when he says that when you say you're going to do something when elected you should do it. You should have the guts to exercise some leadership and stick to your guns. If you run on saying you're going to defund the Affordable Care Act and get elected that's what you should try to do when you get elected.

He means what he says and he says what he means. We could use a lot more politicians like that.

Great! So he's as faithful as an elephant!

In 1992, the United Nations adopted Agenda 21 to “achieve a more efficient and equitable world economy,” outlining a process to eliminate environmental decay and social injustice through micromanaging industries, communities, and culture. They will meet again next year to discuss its “progress” in over 100 nations.
The originator of this grand scheme is George Soros, who candidly supports socialism and believes that global development must progress through eliminating national sovereignty and private property. He has given millions to this project. But he is not the only one promoting this plan; in fact, the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) now consists of over 600 cities in the United States.
Agenda 21 attempts to abolish “unsustainable” environments, including golf courses, grazing pastures, and paved roads. It hopes to leave mother earth’s surface unscratched by mankind. . . . Agenda 21 subverts liberty, our property rights, and our sovereignty.

'"Net Neutrality' is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government,"

Again…just not real smart.

Just a whole lot smarter than you.

[kalm]

Great! So he's as faithful as an elephant!





Again…just not real smart.

Just a whole lot smarter than you.

Bitch, please. Even directional school kids like you and I are smarter than Cruz

[houndawg]

BTW if the people who knew him and disagreed with him hadn't described him as brilliant I wouldn't automatically say that he's all that due to being accepted to Harvard Law School. That's because I'm pretty sure he'd be considered a member of an "under represented minority."

Also, I don't think he has the persona and social skills to be successful at the highest level of politics and he just does not have the look, voice, etc. Give him Ronald Reagan's skills in those areas and he'd be dangerous. But he doesn't have that. He doesn't look good on TV and he has a whiny sounding voice. Just nothing he can do to overcome that.

Too bad because he's right when he says that when you say you're going to do something when elected you should do it. You should have the guts to exercise some leadership and stick to your guns. If you run on saying you're going to defund the Affordable Care Act and get elected that's what you should try to do when you get elected.

He means what he says and he says what he means. We could use a lot more politicians like that.

There is no such thing as a politician who says what he means and means what he says. You're starting to sound like Z when he was jizzing down his leg about the brilliance of picking Sarah Palin as a running mate...

..really John, you are such a drama queen. You really are...

[CID1990]

The only thing more brilliant than Ted Cruz is this trolltastic thread.

Well done, JSO

[Pwns]

The only way you can be a dummy and succeed in politics is if you are a hot female. Fact.

[JohnStOnge]

There is no such thing as a politician who says what he means and means what he says.

You need to really stand back and look at how this guy has behaved. You can even refer to the thing Kalm posted with the author hypothesizing that he must not be intelligent because someone who knew him at Harvard Law saying he's saying exactly the same things now as he did when he was in Law School.

This guy OBVIOUSLY does not stick his finger in the air and try to figure out which way the wind is blowing before he stakes out a clear and unambiguous position. And he obviously doesn't care if the position he stakes out causes people to criticize him.

You know, we heard recently that Obama claimed he supported the traditional definition of marriage as involving one man and one woman when that wasn't really his position because he judged it politically advantageous to do so at the time. I think it's very reasonable to believe Cruz wouldn't do something like that.

[JohnStOnge]

ohn, you misread my post. Read it again, and focus on the sentence immediately preceding "Look at Obama." Barry Soetoro is bored with policy questions. Clinton thrived on them.

You are correct. I misread your post. But a question I have upon reading it again is if you consider Obama to be an exceptionally intelligent President. I don't know if he is. I'm confident he's well about the population average. But I also think his intelligence level tends to be over estimated in the popular mind.

I would love to see some of his standardized test scores to see how he really measured up on such things but they are conspicuously hard...and maybe even impossible...to find. That's one reason I'm suspicious with respect to what relative objective indicators say about his intelligence level. I've developed the impression that if something makes him look good it somehow gets out. I suspect that if he'd have scored at something like the 99th percentile on the SAT, for example, we'd see that all over the place on the internet.

And, again, the fact that he's a member of an "under represented minority" rules out assuming that he was way up there in terms of test scores because he gained admittance to Ivy League schools. High, yes. But not high like they'd have to be if he wasn't either an "under represented minority" or a legacy or something like that.

It's not like Bill Clinton, who was White guy from a modest background who went on to be a Rhodes Scholar and get into Yale Law. That pretty much tells me he's a "way up there" in terms of intelligence guy. He didn't get any points for being a member of an "under represented minority" and he didn't have any family connections to gain him favor. I couldn't stand Clinton being President but I have NO doubt that he's extremely intelligent. Way up there in the top 1 percent.

[kalm]

There is no such thing as a politician who says what he means and means what he says.

You need to really stand back and look at how this guy has behaved. You can even refer to the thing Kalm posted with the author hypothesizing that he must not be intelligent because someone who knew him at Harvard Law saying he's saying exactly the same things now as he did when he was in Law School.

This guy OBVIOUSLY does not stick his finger in the air and try to figure out which way the wind is blowing before he stakes out a clear and unambiguous position. And he obviously doesn't care if the position he stakes out causes people to criticize him.

You know, we heard recently that Obama claimed he supported the traditional definition of marriage as involving one man and one woman when that wasn't really his position because he judged it politically advantageous to do so at the time. I think it's very reasonable to believe Cruz wouldn't do something like that.

So not changing your views = brilliance? Emerson disagrees.

[JohnStOnge]

Great! So he's as faithful as an elephant!

In 1992, the United Nations adopted Agenda 21 to “achieve a more efficient and equitable world economy,” outlining a process to eliminate environmental decay and social injustice through micromanaging industries, communities, and culture. They will meet again next year to discuss its “progress” in over 100 nations.
The originator of this grand scheme is George Soros, who candidly supports socialism and believes that global development must progress through eliminating national sovereignty and private property. He has given millions to this project. But he is not the only one promoting this plan; in fact, the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) now consists of over 600 cities in the United States.
Agenda 21 attempts to abolish “unsustainable” environments, including golf courses, grazing pastures, and paved roads. It hopes to leave mother earth’s surface unscratched by mankind. . . . Agenda 21 subverts liberty, our property rights, and our sovereignty.

'"Net Neutrality' is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government,"

Again…just not real smart.

I"m trying to figure out why you think the quotes you provided support your statement at the end.