The Washington Power Struggle – Ted Cruz and Mark Rubio – Dangerous to the Status Quo – To Both Major Political Parties.

Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio - Serving Public Contrary to Party Leadership - image Latino Fox News

When one thinks of the center of power in the United States, one instantly identifies Washington, D.C. the wealthiest City in the nation, the home to the President, Senators and Congressman, and their lobbyists. There are the political party leaders, and then the rank and file members – who are expected to do whatever is necessary to keep everyone at their peak of personal power, and when one member rocks the boat, there’s hell to pay.

The Republican’s now have two such members in their ranks – Ted Cruz, Senator from Texas, and Marco Rubio, Senator from Florida – both Hispanics and both staunch Conservatives.

First, Sen. Rubio, who delivered the Republican response to the State of the Union in in February, 2013. (Link includes full text of speech - NPR). Apparently, Rubio became thirsty and grabbed a bottle of water off camera – which quickly developed into Bottled-Watergate via a media hailstorm suggesting that one drink would stymie any future political ambition possibly held by the Florida Senators. In an op-ed by conservative columnist, Cal Thomas, in Newsday Rubio, and his Senate counterpart, Ted Cruz of Texas are portrayed as a “double threat”, first to the Democrats as they see Rubio communicating with Hispanics (which, said minority are considered “owned” by that political party), therefore, a sip of water becomes a full-blown career ender. (With Ted Cruz, it is also about his connection to the Hispanic Community, however, as Thomas suggests the Democrats have a vested interest in eliminating Cruz, not necessarily, it is more likely the Republican Leadership- see Red State on Cruz which follows.) The import of the State of the Union and the Response for the American Public is not as pivotal as it was in decades past – therefore one would imagine it is more about power, controlling power, and consolidating minorities in order for those that hold the power in D.C. to maintain that power.)

Background on the State of the Union

The first televised State of the Union was introduced by Democrat President, Harry Truman, and televised in 1947 (History.com), eventually drawing huge audiences, up to three quarters of the adult population watched on the new medium of television by the 1960’s. (History Channel, The Presidents). As the televised State of the Union developed over the decades, a response by the opposing political party was added. in 1966. (Senate.gov/artandhistory) The last State of the Union in February, drew 35 Millions, (Washington Post), which indicates that fewer U.S. citizens are interested in what the President, or the opposition might have to say - there’s also alternative cable channels.

On Cruz and his being a thorn in the side of Republicans see Erick Erickson of Red State’s take on that subject. Erickson outlines the business as usual in D.C.; the party leadership assigning lobbyist and allocating committee seats to newcomers in order to bring them around to a status point of view. As Ted Cruz is not playing along, therefore, leaks to the press about Cruz are more than likely coming from the left of center Republican Leadership. (Think McConnell, McCain and Graham). Red State).

When a politician who’s ideals outweigh their commitment to power, one of two things happen, either they become part of the party establishment after a period of time, they face a primary in the next term, or they decide one term in Washington is more than enough (Read: A National Party No More” by Zell Miller, one term Senator from the State of Georgia.)

Although one might not politically agree with either the Republican Party or the Democrat Party, the fact that our elected officials, who are elected by the people of their districts or states based upon their individuality rather than party (one would hope), once elected, those members are expected to become part of the “machine” that is Washington. This occurs in both parties (See Rahm Emmanuel and the Blue Dog Democrats), and does little but continue the partisan politics that pervade both Houses of Congress. Moreover, nothing actually gets accomplished other than the growth of wealth and consolation of personal power in the current two-party systems. It is refreshing when a member of either House, goes “off the reservation” and openly revolts by doing exactly what they said they would do – so far.