A reader writes:
Hi, Gov. Huckabee. Thank you for your daily newsletter. Regarding Jan. 6, which was an unfortunate event, I saw a clip of [Texas] Sen. Ted Cruz referring to this as a "terrorist attack," which to my mind would equate it with Pearl Harbor and Sept. 11, which is nonsense. I know Democrats are committed to keeping Jan. 6 alive as the worst day in American history, but when Republicans start jumping on that bandwagon, I get greatly concerned, especially someone like Cruz who should not be engaging in exaggerated rhetoric. (Could it be he is planning on running for President in 2024 as a challenge to Donald Trump?) God bless.
Thanks for writing, Marilyn. Only Sen. Cruz knows what he thought he personally had to gain by describing the rioters of Jan. 6 as “terrorists,” but it must have been something. We’d expect to hear this from, say, Liz Cheney, but whatever is going in Cruz’s mind right now is baffling. Of course it was nonsense –- we’ve shown with hard facts over just the past couple of days how ludicrous it is to compare the Capitol Hill riot with a real terrorist attack such as 9/11 –- and Cruz had to KNOW it was nonsense before the words left his mouth. He said it anyway, very deliberately, fully aware that it was ludicrous, so there must be some method to his madness.
But madness it is.
Cruz went on Tucker Carlson’s show Thursday night to try to help himself, and I’m being charitable when I say that it did not go well. Tucker didn't buy his explanation that he’d been “sloppy” and made a mistake with his poor choice of words, because Tucker knows that master-debater Cruz doesn’t EVER choose words sloppily. Also, this isn’t even the first time Cruz has used the word “terrorist” in this context; nearly a year ago, he called the incident “a terrorist attack” and “an assault on the citadel of democracy,” which, frankly, sounds more like something Chuck Schumer would say. So, to his credit, Tucker didn’t let Cruz get away with it.
“I don’t believe you used that word accidentally,” Tucker told him. Cruz then tried to walk it back by saying that’s the term he uses for people who attack police. Carlson still didn’t let him off the hook, noting that even those charged with assaulting officers are not actual terrorists and that no one associated with this event has been charged with terrorism. (Note: nobody’s been charged with insurrection, either.)
“Why did you use that word?” Tucker asked Cruz. “You’re playing into the other side’s characterization.”
Tucker's right --- that’s exactly what he was doing, and the "why" is a real head-scratcher. If it’s true he’s planning to run for President in 2024 and assumes he'll likely be challenging Trump in the primary, this has got to be the worst way to go about it. It makes him look bad, it fractures the GOP, and, perhaps most of all, it plays into the disgusting lie that’s become the new fake anti-Trump mantra to replace the old fake anti-Trump mantra, which is to say, “Russia Russia Russia!!”
As it is, whether or not Trump is the candidate –- we know, of course, that anyone else will be tarred as a proxy for Trump –- we’re going to hear, day in and day out until Election Day '24, the lie that Trump supporters are terrorists and a threat to “our democracy,” And that leads right into our next story...