Meet Ted Cruz: Tea Party darling, Princeton / Harvard grad, son of a Cuban immigrant

[Jeff Lebowski]

Do you remember the name of the program? I want to watch that.

No, sorry. It has been 2-3 years.

It was fascinating. They interviewed ghostwriters and they told some amazing stories. My fake dialogue shown above is not far-fetched at all. You also got the sense that they often ended up hating and being repulsed by the celebs in the process. At the same time, some of them seemed to take a lot of pride in their work. "I can't tell you the names of the books, but I have written X books that have been top-sellers."

[Jeff Lebowski]

Hey, wait a minute. It just occurred to me that many top-level GAs churn out book after book for sale via Deseret Book. All this while having incredibly busy schedules. I wonder...? (shudder)

[imanihonjin]

Well, I guess I don't feel too sorry for the chumps that buy these books. And I certainly don't believe anyone is breaking any laws. I just find the whole process kind of shallow and artificial.

First meeting between celeb and ghostwriter:

Celeb: "Hey, thanks for coming over. So I want you to write a book for me."
GW: "No problem. You got a topic in mind?"
Celeb: "I don't know, I was thinking something about the liberal media."
GW: "That has kind of played out. How about something on the evils of ObamaCare? That is red meat these days. Assuming we act quickly."
Celeb: "Great idea! Let's go with that."
GW: "Any preference on content?"
Celeb: "Nah. Just use the standard talking points and make shit up when you need to. These people just after confirmation bias anyway."
GW: "Got it."
Celeb: "And whatever you do, don't put your name anywhere on the cover or inside the book. I want people to think I wrote this."
GW: "No problem. That is standard procedure. Any preference on length?"
Celeb: "Not too long. I hate long books."
GW: "OK. 250 pages maybe?"
Celeb: "Perfect. Can you have this done in two months? I want to start pimping it on my talk show. Build up the pre-orders."
GW: "Consider it done."

Hooray for capitalism!

I guess for me, as far as a book goes, I am looking for entertainment or knowledge. I don't believe either of those is enhanced by the person's name on the book.

[San Juan Sun]

I guess for me, as far as a book goes, I am looking for entertainment or knowledge. I don't believe either of those is enhanced by the person's name on the book.

Teriffic. I will write a book that will be both entertaining and informative. Since that's your main criteria for book buying, I'm sure you'll be interested. Would you like to pre-order now?

[San Juan Sun]

Hey, wait a minute. It just occurred to me that many top-level GAs churn out book after book for sale via Deseret Book. All this while having incredibly busy schedules. I wonder...? (shudder)

Hmmmmmmmmm

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Hey, wait a minute. It just occurred to me that many top-level GAs churn out book after book for sale via Deseret Book. All this while having incredibly busy schedules. I wonder...? (shudder)

I was at Des Book, not bragging just stating facts, about a week after GC a couple of years ago and the girl was pimping some new book by a Q12 very hard. I said "if there was anything really important in there I assume he'd have mentioned it over the weekend." She was not sure how to respond.

[imanihonjin]

Teriffic. I will write a book that will be both entertaining and informative. Since that's your main criteria for book buying, I'm sure you'll be interested. Would you like to pre-order now?

Depends.....I am not going to take your word for it that the book is informative or entertaining. Prove it, and then maybe I will buy it.

[TripletDaddy]

I was at Des Book, not bragging just stating facts

lol.

[Moliere]

Ted Cruz says:

“This year, I’m sorry to tell you, the United States Senate is going to be voting on a constitutional amendment to repeal the First Amendment,” Cruz said, to the audible shock of the crowd.

http://mobile.rawstory.com/all/2014-...nt-this-year#1

[New Mexican Disaster]

Ted Cruz says:



http://mobile.rawstory.com/all/2014-...nt-this-year#1

Ted Cruz does not have a problem stretching the truth.

[frank ryan]

Ted Cruz does not have a problem stretching the truth.

Ya, talk about being so full of shit.

[Uncle Ted]

Ted Cruz does not The Harvard grads don't have a problem stretching the truth.

FIFY for the general case...

[imanihonjin]

Ted Cruz says:



http://mobile.rawstory.com/all/2014-...nt-this-year#1

Ted Cruz does not have a problem stretching the truth.

Ya, talk about being so full of shit.

Looks like Ted was right to a certain point.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...dment-i/print/

[Uncle Ted]

Looks like Ted was right to a certain point.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...dment-i/print/

Damn that Ted Cruz! He even wrote an op ed on the subject for the WSJ:

The Democratic Assault on the First Amendment

For two centuries there has been bipartisan agreement that American democracy depends on free speech. Alas, more and more, the modern Democratic Party has abandoned that commitment and has instead been trying to regulate the speech of the citizenry.


We have seen President Obama publicly rebuke the Supreme Court for protecting free speech in Citizens United v. FEC; the Obama IRS inquire of citizens what books they are reading and what is the content of their prayers; the Federal Communications Commission proposing to put government monitors in newsrooms; and Sen. Harry Reid regularly slandering private citizens on the Senate floor for their political speech.


But just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, it does. Senate Democrats have promised a vote this year on a constitutional amendment to expressly repeal the free-speech protections of the First Amendment.

You read that correctly. Forty-one Democrats have signed on to co-sponsor New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall's proposed amendment to give Congress plenary power to regulate political speech. The text of the amendment says that Congress could regulate "the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections." The amendment places no limitations whatsoever on Congress's new power.


Two canards are put forth to justify this broad authority. First, "money is not speech." And second, "corporations have no free speech rights."
[...]

http://online.wsj.com/articles/ted-c...ent-1401662112

[byu71]

I am not a fan of all the money in politics. However, I firmly believe the democrats have such a huge inherent advantage that if you eliminated or limited political contributions the republicans would be in real trouble.

The dems have the press behind them for the most part. Talk about a total freebie and how much do you think that is worth in dollars? You also have the labor unions not only with money, but their ability to organize and get members out to vote.

Corporate dollars going to mainly to republicans is a farce in my opinion. I guess it depends on how you define mainly, but I would guess the split isn't anymore than 60/40 if that.

The main problem though is the liberal press. Without political contributions, their power to control especially national elections will be a boon to the dems.