The latest New York Times bestseller list has Ted Cruz's A Time for Truth at number 8. Just above him is former President Jimmy Carter's A Full Life, coming in at 7.
The strange thing, however, is that Cruz sold almost 60 percent more copies of his book last week than Carter.
According to Bookscan, which tracks the number of books sold, Cruz sold 8,814 last week. Carter sold only 5,147.
The New York Times list does not indicate either author's books were purchased in bulk orders.
Cruz was left off the list the first week his book came out after the Times claimed there had been bulk orders of the new volume. Both Cruz and his publisher, HarperCollins, denied evidence of bulks orders.
In a statement, Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler says, "It’s no surprise that the liberal New York Times would prop up progressive Jimmy Carter over a conservative like Ted Cruz. But to do so in light of Cruz’s book selling 58 percent more copies last week than Carter’s reaffirms the Times’ questionable standards being used to determine its bestseller list. New York Times has a responsibility to its authors and readers to uphold fair standards, and we stand by our call for Public Editor Margaret Sullivan examine its methodology."
Cruz also accomplished something rare. In the second week of his book being on the shelves, he sold 7,051 copies. In the third week, the number was 8,814. It's considered rare for a political book to increase its sales with time.
The grandson of former president Jimmy Carter wants to run for the White House himself, says Georgia governor Nathan Deal. Jason Carter, a young Democratic state senator from Decatur, is challenging the Republican Deal in a close race. Speaking at a rally in Dahlonega, the 72-year-old Deal told the crowd that his Democratic opponent wants to follow in his grandfather's footsteps.
The oldest and most durable of all Washington handouts is the agricultural subsidy. Without it, of course, farm families would be forced off the land, food prices would rise, and all manner of woe would be the nation's lot.
I've been wary of comparisons of this year's presidential race with that of 1980. I'd love it if the comparison holds, but have been worried 1) that the conditions aren't the same as in 1980 in all kinds of ways, and 2) that over-confidence the race will inevitably break to Romney at the end, as the 1980 race did to Reagan, could lead to complacency on the right rather than a sense of urgency, including a sense of urgency in pushing the Romney campaign to improve.
When Republican strategists like Karl Rove cite 1980 as a model for this year’s election, they usually have in mind two main elements: Ronald Reagan’s question in the late October presidential debate about whether voters felt better off than four years earlier, when they elected Jimmy Carter, and Reagan’s ability in that debate to reassure swing voters about his ability to serve successfully if elected, converting a very close race into a ten-point blowout by “closing the deal.”
President Obama is outside the ideological mainstream, viewed as very liberal by an electorate that’s moderate or somewhat conservative. His domestic policies are unpopular, notably his health care law, economic stimulus, and spending plans. His foreign policy initiatives—curbing Iran’s nuclear weapons program, improving America’s position in the Middle East, fostering better relations with Russia—have failed. The public wants Obama to jettison his ineffective economic policies and implement new ones. But he refuses.