Entertainment / Politics

Stephen Colbert Grills Ted Cruz On Ronald Reagan Comparison, Gay Marriage

From – deadline.com – By Lisa de Moraes

“Guys, guys! However you feel, he’s my guest, so don’t boo him,” Stephen Colbert schooled his Late Show studio audience as he debated GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz on the subject of same-sex marriage.

On no night since Colbert took over CBS’ Late Show has the difference between his program and that of his broadcast competitors been more sharply drawn than last night as Colbert gave Cruz the grilling he did not get at either GOP debate. Meanwhile, over on NBC’s The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, Carly Fiorina sang a tune she created about her dog, re-iterated the no-talk plan in re “barrel chested” Russian leader Vladimir Putin and explained why it’s critical for the POTUS to be religious.

Cruz told Colbert his platform in a nutshell is that the country should “live within our means, stop bankrupting our kids and grandkids and follow the Constitution.”

“And no gay marriage,” Colbert chimed in, Cruz being a former Supreme Court clerk and various GOP  candidates’ having campaigned aggressively on the recent high court decision.

“Well actually, let’s be precise: Under the Constitution, marriage is a question for the states,” Cruz responded.

“It doesn’t mention marriage in the Constitution,” Colbert shot back. His audience applauded.

“The 10th Amendment states that if the Constitution doesn’t mention it, it’s a question for the states. … I don’t think we should entrust governing our society to five unelected lawyers in Washington,” Cruz argued. Viewers could hear boos coming from the audience. That’s when Colbert asked them to knock it off.

“If you want to win an issue, go to the ballot box and win at the ballot box,” Cruz told them.

Earlier, the Texas senator had brought up Ronald Reagan, and Colbert jumped on board:

“Reagan raised taxes, OK? Reagan actually had an amnesty program for illegal immigrants. Neither of those things would allow Reagan to be nominated today,” Colbert said, also noting the 40th president’s having worked with then-Democratic leader Tip O’Neill to get things done in Washington.  “To what level can you truly emulate Ronald Reagan?” Colbert wondered, suggesting what the American voter wants is action in Washington.

Cruz shot back that no voter ever has told him they want him to “give in more to Barack Obama.” Colbert pressed, asking Cruz if he could “agree with Reagan on” raising taxes and amnesty for illegal immigrants.

“No, of course not,” Cruz replied. Cruz’s storyline focused on the Ronald Reagan who “signed the largest tax cut in history.”

Cruz added: “He reduced government regulations from Washington, and economic growth exploded.”

Colbert reminded: “But when conditions changed in the country, he reversed his world’s largest tax cut and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations, so it’s a matter of compromising.”

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ivan Berry
7 years ago

Funny, but that is the first time I ever listened to col Bert (he ain’t French). Don’t plan to listen to him again.
He and celebs like him just constitute the circus that keeps the masses entertained (low brow, though it is), while all these extended unemployment bennies and Snap food stamps keep the bread on the table or in the lap of these tv addicts. If you don’t want to be dumbed down, read and study. These folks are none to admire nor to emulate.
Ruel and PaulE had it right. Were the audience blessed with critical reasoning skills, there would be no contest between the moderator and Cruz. Too bad limited attention span has resulted in sound bites being equatated with wisdom.

7 years ago

Great interview, and great responses Ted Cruz.

7 years ago

I agree with you that the opinions of any celebrity, outside the limited area of their expertise (their sport, the show or movie they’ve acted in, etc.), is completely unimportant as they have little to no in-depth knowledge of most subjects they’re commenting on. We are a celebrity obsessed culture, so the mainstream media utilizes these talking heads as an attractive way to promote progressive propaganda on a multitude of subjects whenever possible. That is why you see so many articles or video clips highlighting what one celebrity or another has said on any given subject.

7 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

The above comment is in reply to Ruel D.

Ruel D
7 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

I do a bit of history reading. Nothing to make me anything more than a “buff”, but it seems like we’ve always been celebrity obsessed. I just think that the celebrities of the 19th century, Clay, Jennings Bryant, Grant, Sherman, Lee, Crockett, Bowie, etc. were men of substance, not the fatuous fools we dote on today. Today, one is reminded of lemmings or the pied piper.

7 years ago

Isn’t this supposed to be a comedy show? Why do we care what comes out of these shows in the first place?

7 years ago

Since Colbert took over the show, the ratings have nose-dived to where he is now in third place in a three way race between Fallon, Kimmel and himself. What does that tell you about the American public? Yes, Colbert appeals to the far left in this country, but as the ratings numbers tell you, that clearly isn’t enough for him to win his time slot or even be competitive against his rivals. As a result, CBS has seen a decrease in the ad revenue generated from this show. How much longer CBS is willing to take the monetary hit is of course open to debate. The contact they have with Colbert clearly is going to a money losing one for CBS and its shareholders.

As for the interview, what you see on display is Colbert trying to advance the dogma of Progressivism, of which he freely admits he is a proud believer in it, by trying to bend certain selective moments in time to fit the progressive narrative he is actively pushing. The problem for Colbert in this case is:
1) He’s up against a real Constitutional lawyer who not only knows what the Constitution does and does NOT empower the federal government to do, along with the powers that are subsequently vested to the individual states, but Cruz also knows the historical period being discussed far better than Colbert.
2) It’s not a discussion between equals. Cruz is the adult in the conversation, laying out facts and details to support his statements. Colbert is the petulant child playing to his liberal audience. He’s relying on progressive sound bites, which may get Democrats to applaud, but there is no substance there. Standard “feel good” or “feels like the right things to do” progressive politics. Devoid of any basis in actual Constitutional law. Colbert neither understands how the Constitution actually delineates power between the federal government and the individual states nor does he have a firm grasp of the historical era he is trying to use to justify his arguments.

Perhaps when the Republicans have their debate on CBS, if there is one scheduled for CBS, the network will use Colbert as one of the so-called impartial moderators. He would fit right in with the other moderators all the major networks will be using. Colbert is just far more open about where he stands politically. He is typical of the hypocrites in the mainstream media, that bash the very capitalistic system that allowed them to become so successful and accumulate their wealth in the first place. Now he and the rest of the mainstream media are all for socialism (progressivism). They have an expectation that they will be spared from its negative effects, because they have been good, loyal members of the progressive movement all these years. This is where their lack of real historical knowledge will come back to bite them in the end.

Ruel D
7 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

Right on the money as usual. The only thing I would add is “who cares?”. I read four different conservative news outlets, including this one, and I am constantly amazed and disheartened by their daily publishing of articles on the thoughts of actors, sports stars, and comedians. These people are the court jesters, and as you point out, have no factual basis for the opinions the espouse. This goes for the ones I agree with as well as the ones I disagree with. They are protected, spoiled brats who are enormously overpaid for what they do. Why do we add notoriety to the benefits of being a public clown?

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x