There is something obscene about watching Ted Cruz debate dogmatic leftists that gives me the tingles and… well let’s just say I get very comfortable.

It’s the same as with idiot celebrities or idiot-er college students, that think because he’s a southern Christian, he can barely tie his own shoes. In their minds, if they simply step up to him with something they read off of a meme, that’s all they need to make him look stupid. Then he fires back and it’s just bodies all over the floor.
Here’s Ted Cruz in an OFFICIAL HEARING on Climate Global Warming Cooling Change…
“And I assume that the Sierra Club would issue a public retraction if confronted with the facts? That the data are precisely as I described. That over the last 18 years there has been no significant warming. And indeed that is why global alarmists invented the term ‘the pause’ to explain what they call the pause in global arming because the data demonstrate what you just said that the Earth is cooking and warming is not backed up by the data.”
“You know, Mr. Mair, I find it striking that for a policy organization that purports to focus exclusively on environmental issues, that you are not willing to tell this committee that you would issue a retraction if your testimony is objectively false under scientific data That undermines the credibility of any organization.”
This is the Ted Cruz American needs to see. Not the Mr. Rogers-sounding wallflower we’ve seen in the debates, but the man who shows up to play.
When given the proper time, in an open forum, Cruz’ debate performances are nothing short of masterful. Here in this exchange he systematically cuts off the ring for his opponent. 

When the opponent (Aaron Mair) tries to claim that he “agrees with 97% of scientists,” Cruz brings it back to the original question; that of Sierra Club’s and NOAA’s own data. When Aaron is unable to answer and leans over to his consultant, Ted Cruz calls him on it.

Interesting that the head of the Sierra Club would be so unfamiliar with their own data, no?
Cruz knows how to frame the argument in a way that focuses on hard information at hand, and routinely brings the argument off the rails back on-topic when necessary. It’s almost like he’s a Harvard Lawyer or something. You know, one who other students and professors of Harvard actually remember…

If you don’t have nine minutes to watch the whole video, let me sum it up for you…