So weeks to go and Cruz is groaning about supporting Trump?
Ted Cruz expected to throw support to Trump
By Katie Glueck and Burgess Everett | 09/23/16 | Politico
Multiple sources close to Ted Cruz say the Texas senator is expected indicate his support for Donald Trump as soon as Friday.
It is unclear whether Cruz will say only that he is voting for the Republican nominee, as other lawmakers have done, or offer a more full-throated endorsement, but the idea of throwing any support to Trump is controversial within Cruzworld.
“If he announces he endorses, it destroys his political brand,” said someone who had worked for Cruz’s campaign.
Loose cannon media personality and hard core Ted Cruz surrogate Glenn Beck is unraveling in the aftermath of Tuesday’s Indiana thumping. The mercurial Beck who last week called for a day of fasting so that God would help Cruz, is taking Donald Trump’s capture of the Republican party flag very hard. Beck’s visible mental decline accelerated when he told his audience that God needs to punish America for rejecting tricky Ted in favor of Trump, a man who while popular with the voters – democracy anyone? – doesn’t meet the standards of the country’s most visible Cruz-bot.
Breitbart News is reporting “Glenn Beck: America Is a ‘Petulant Child’ God Must Punish for Supporting Trump Over Cruz”:
Now I would be the first in a line to say we very well have some comeuppance due for our defiant ways in America. Remember abortion and go from there. However, something about Beck blaring it from the rooftops makes me question the messenger, over the message. Who bestowed the crown on this modern day prophet… at least he appears to think he is? It slightly reminds me of the slave girl in Acts running after the disciples.
Acts 16:
16One day as we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl with a spirit of clairvoyance, who earned a large income for her masters by fortune-telling. 17This girl followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation.”
18She continued this for many days. Eventually Paul grew so aggravated that he turned and said to the spirit, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!” And the spirit left her at that very moment.
I’m wondering about Beck’s intentions. Anyway, just curious what’s really driving it?
Ted Cruz makes much of what he calls his ground game. What Cruz did in Iowa and in Wisconsin, to his success, was to plug into the ground operation of one of the insiders. In Iowa it was Steve KIng, in Wisconsin it was Scott Walker. No surprise that Walker would have a strong grass roots effort in Wisconsin, including media, given his political career.
So Ted was good when he could plug his campaign into the state grassroots in the state he was going. He did not have that other places and he lost big-time. So he depended on that network to deliver success to his campaign.
However, Trump was not fortunate to have all that access and capability. Rather he just built it himself as he went. And Ted mocked Trump recently for parachuting into states like Mick Jagger and then leaving. But Donald turned out the vote, even in Michigan. His ground game is self-constructed
But now, or since Trump’s constant winning streak cannot be undone, Ted reverts to inside political chicanery. That’s right, the outsider Ted is playing inside-baseball politics. We’ve seen it all along. Then we hear Cruz drones say Donald just does not know how to play the game, or doesn’t understand the rules.
So Ted puts his faith, besides the primaries, into the delegate process and hopes for a contested election. Yesterday Jan Brewer criticized how she was shoved out of the delegate process. Now comes the story of Jim Gilmore.
Jim Gilmore may be a former governor, state attorney general, Republican National Committee chairman and presidential candidate. But he couldn’t get elected as a delegate to his party’s national convention.
When delegates were selected at Virginia’s state convention in Harrisonburg this past weekend, Gilmore, 66, put his name forward and was shut out.
The process was heavily politicized, as supporters of Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) maneuvered to elect a delegate slate that they hope will block billionaire Donald Trump from winning the Republican nomination for president.
While Trump won Virginia’s March 1 primary and garnered twice as many votes as third-place finisher Cruz, the party activists at the state convention picked 10 Cruz supporters and three Trump supporters to head to Cleveland.
Gilmore said he had been “informally assured” that he would be on the delegate slate — “that it was a no-brainer.”
But that was before the “strong-arm tactics at the convention” forced him out, he said.
So Brewer was a one off that didn’t know what she was doing or talking about?
Gilmore has said he is interested in bringing Va into the Republican column and keeping it there. He admits that seems to be Trump. He will support the nominee and says we need to unify the party behind our nominee and beat Hillary. But even that is being undermined by Cruz. So for all the talk Cruz has about consolidating and unifying, he is a divider.
Now in Indiana, on the cusp of losing the Hoosier state, after counting on a win there, he recoils and unloads a diatribe on Trump and those supporting him. But he got Pence’s tepid endorsement, if you can call it that, late in the game where Pence said nice things about Trump as well. Then Came Ted’s scorched earth tirade of personal attack on Trump.
Does he really think this would help him on the verge of losing the primary? Apparently so, but then his back room delegate chicanery continues despite whatever he says publicly. Two faces of a campaign — the outsider pretender vs. the political operative grasping at any tactics he can — damn the unity talk.
First, a big hat tip to Dave for forwarding this reference article to me some time back. This is as good a time as any for it. He contemplates the general election.
Ted has been running around for months saying he should be elected because he is the one that can win against Hillary. Since he has said it so often and it is his greatest talking point, then how about it? Can Ted beat Hillary? It is not a popularity contest… on popular vote.
Popular vote is one thing but it comes to the electoral college, as we know. So take a look at the Romney map of 2012, below. Now Cruz has to explain what state(s) he could win above what Romney did to get the 64 more electoral votes of the 270 needed?
The article above from Washington Post says, under the current map Democrats use, they have built in 242 votes. Hillary has to provide the balance. But the question is what more could Cruz do than Romney did since he had 206. (Romney 2012 map– 270towin.com)
Or how much differently could Cruz make the map to get the 270. There is an interactive map here to build your own. Below is the tossup map example.(a good start)
One such hypothetical for Cruz, in the article, would be Oh, Va, Fla, Co. But, as he explains, “Obama won all those states twice.” Still, it pays to see the article.
The story is (at Gateway Pundit) Glenn Beck blew 500,000 traveling around campaigning with Cruz. The jury is out on if it helped Cruz. And he recently fired 40 employees.
Glenn takes to the air to knock down the claims that his spending half a million campaigning for Cruz has anything to do with eliminating 40 employees.
But Glenn Beck is now living in ‘Ted’s world’. Usually Ted is the one who connects two separate things as the same. But of course it isn’t that A + B must equal Cause and effect; the real point is that they both happened. So he acts as if he is knocking down the story when he is only arguing about speculation on A & B’s relationship.
At a speech at Standford, John Boehner was asked what he thought of Ted Cruz.
Might as well teed that up on a par one for him.
“Lucifer in the flesh,” Boehner said. “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”
“I never worked with John Boehner. Truth is, I don’t know him that well,” Cruz said in his revocation of John Boehner standing next to his new running mate, Carly Fiorina.
Cruz never worked with him. Ted was his lawyer back in the 90’s. Cruz even won a case getting Boehner a million dollars for legal fees. Ted must have a selective memory.
Sean questions Cruz and gets talking point- Cruz bothered. Then Sean gives him an earful. [takes place on Tuesday, April 19]
See what happens when he asks him a “process question”. He really doesn’t like the question. Cruz pulls his “Trumpsters” are whining card. Sean: “it’s not a Trump question”.
Sen-talking points-Ted complains that voters don’t care about the delegate debacle, only “Trumpsters do, and calls the controversy incessant whining. He called Trump’s campaign a “Kim Kardashian reality show.” Talk about talking points?
The voice really tells the tale, on the radio. Confrontational even hostile, sounds like a real uniter.
Even as his campaign has pushed a populist message and he has railed against Wall Street “crony capitalism” repeatedly, the Texas senator indicated Friday that he is not beneath accepting donations from anyone, including from members of the financial industry, which has already contributed $12 million to his campaign.
Appearing on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” Friday, Cruz again referred to the Dodd-Frank Act as benefiting large banks at the expense of the “little guy,” or smaller community banks. Co-anchor Andrew Ross Sorkin then pressed the candidate about his “rivals” criticizing him for soliciting donations from the same people whose industry has spoken out on the campaign trail.
“Look, we’ll take money from anyone. In fact, Andrew, I would love a check right now. It’s $2,700, or you could go to TedCruz.org,” Cruz said.
So what all does that mean to Ted Cruz? He was a part of it. Yet what Cruz really is concerned about is some campaign donations Trump gave to Hillary, or others.
Well, Ted’s yet to address it. Remember Rick Perry pushed the NAFTA super highway, or Trans-Texas Corridor, despite the overwhelming will of Texas people. (or many others)
Under the auspices of SPP we were told shut up our disagreement, and don’t worry about it. Vincente Fox made that prediction then, and who is the big opponent to our border security, control now? Who has taken to the airwaves to filibuster talk shows to call Trump every name in the book, while castigating all Americans who entertain his ideas?
But it all has only gotten worse with every year, hasn’t it? Still no explanations from principle characters. ‘Sit down and shut up!’
Oh, Cruz did suggest Heidi’s CFR involvement was under some guise of resisting this attempt while her name is right on the report as one of the architects. She really delivered then, didn’t she? Ted should have some ‘splaining to do.
John Kasich said that Donald Trump has created “a toxic environment.” So Trump is to blame, apparently, for these protests and large group that shut down a rally in Chicago.
Now I know people appreciate Kasich for his record and success, and so do I, but I have to take issue with his statements. Let’s put the blame where it lies, can we?
Trump is not an isolated factor nor the cause of everyone’s opinions. He is not the cause of the anger, it predates his run by far. What has failed us is our Party and leaders. To ignore the cause of this movement, the anger and disgust is to dismiss the purpose. Many people try to ignore and dismiss the purpose of this.
In Chicago, a protest organizer explained that, after they positioned themselves all around the venue, their goal was “for Donald to take the stage and to completely interrupt him. The plan is to shut Donald Trump all the way down.” Now is that perfectly clear?
Then Kasich’s spokesperson came out, also condemning Trump, but saying we understand the reason people are mad as heck and he[John] understands that anger. Does he really? He seems to dismiss the voices of masses so easily, but put some blame where it belongs — with politicians and the establishment status quo.
How come when someone surges like that on the uber-Left everyone celebrates them, they gush praises on them? But on the right, they rush to condemn them. Why is that?
Rubio says he doesn’t know if he could support the nominee if it was Trump. “I don’t know.” He believes trump would shatter and fracture the [party] movement, as the nominee. Again, what has fractured and shattered the right has been the establishment politics as usual. Only insiders or estabo hacks could claim that… because it already is.
Cruz said the “responsibility for any campaign begins and ends at the top.” Maybe for others, not considering camp Cruz’s dirty tricks applied in Iowa. Cruz implies that if we just talk a certain way and act a certain way — like him — and have a dialogue, it eliminates problems like the Chicago protests. Please, is this really Ted’s understanding and knowledge of the Left?
Their Marxist purpose is to shut popular voices on the right down. It is not about dialogues or reasoning with them. All these front groups on the left operate the same way, or in concert with one another.But their objective is to stifle opposition to themselves any way they can. All of us should appeal to civility or appeal to our “better angels,” Cruz said.
Carly Fiorina said Trump “has taken advantage of [people’s] anger and frustration.” Blind are leading the blind. When she was talking about people’s anger that was different. Was she extorting that and her female credentials? Now just blame Trump for having given voice to the exact issues GOPe wanted to bury.
Obama, for the second time in a week, took his time to delve into politics namely on the right, in his roadshow tour. He said:
(Wa Po“)What is happening in this primary is just a distillation of what’s been happening inside their party for more than a decade. I mean, the reason that many of their voters are responding is because this is what’s been fed through the messages they’ve been sending for a long time — that you just make flat assertions that don’t comport with the facts. That you just deny the evidence of science. That compromise is a betrayal. That the other side isn’t simply wrong, or we just disagree, we want to take a different approach, but the other side is destroying the country, or treasonous. I mean, that’s — look it up. That’s what they’ve been saying.”
He went on to add that there are “thoughtful conservatives” out there — read who agree with him — that care about poverty, climate change, don’t insult people, who are concerned about what is going on. Well, everyone is concerned, supposedly, one way or another. But more of the same is not exactly the answer to any of it, or what they are asking for.
Then Obama said:
“We’ve got a debate inside the other party that is fantasy and schoolyard taunts and selling stuff like it’s the Home Shopping Network,” he joked.
“Now, the truth is, what they really mean is their reaction to me was crazy and now it has gotten out of hand. But that’s different. I didn’t cause the reaction. The reaction is something that they have to take responsibility for and then figure out how do we make an adjustment.”
We are being bamboozled people. This is the way the left operates and made to order for the party of Alinsky radicals. I’m not saying we are playing into their hands. Heaven knows they are going to do and act this way no matter what. I’m saying Trump presented them with an ideal opportunity for their tactics. Maybe this is one of the ways Carson can help Trump, by knowing and understanding their exact tactics.
What they have done is use Trump to personalize their attacks to broad brush the whole conservative country. Trump gives them a personal target. This is what they’ve always done. So while Ted Cruz rails about the Washington Cartel, that’s fine. But we also have to focus on left-wing fascism, too. Let’s not look at Trump as the problem when, in fact, he has been one person to speak out about the problems. So naturally he would be a target of theirs.They want to destroy anyone and anything that gets in their way. Why should it surprise us?
Give me a break though, as everyone comes along to say “we know people are angry…” blah, blah and it is justified. Well, if they do know, then why do they face off with and criticize the people for taking action? In fact, they tell us they understand it that they too are angry. Really, what are they doing?
Maybe Trump is getting the hang of it and understands this radical dynamic of the Marxist Left. He has taken to pointing to the protestors as Bernie’s people, and indeed many were Bernie people in Chicago’s protest. He calls them out and personalizes who they are.
Hillary could not pass the opportunity to say “When you play with matches, you could start a fire you cannot control.” Let’s talk about playing with matches and starting a fire you can’t control sometime. It’s a long conversation.
Bernie continues to say Trump stokes anger while his campaign throws the “revolution” around loosely. Now considering Bernie’s chances against Hillary, what happens when he loses and when everyone does not get their totally free college education? Talk about stoking people’s anxieties, anger and expectations. What are those people going to do? You and I both probably have a good idea what they are going to do.
Now have you ever seen a candidate or someone take as much incoming attacks and criticism as Trump, especially from powerful places and the media? And it keeps coming.
Jekyll Island redux. A group of top Republican establishment, operatives and donors organize a meeting to take out Trump. Of, course the strange thing is it is not in secret, they are right out in the open about it. Jeb Bush has a private meeting with Kasich, Cruz, Rubio strategizing a take down before the debate.
I’ve already talked about Mitt Romney fiasco, also scheming behind the scenes. Then there is the matter where Republicans or Trump critics cannot oppose protests or Romney attacks because both comports with their own opposition. What kind of Party?
MSNBC has been reading motives into Trump all along, like racism. Other media jumped on to condemn Trump for what happened in Chicago. Glenn Beck a week ago referred to Trump supporters as Nazis and brownshirts. Talk about doing the Left’s work for them. Then another news broadcast said the rallies are WWE-type events where Trump incites and promotes violence. Two weeks ago, and still, they were stuck on a KKK message trying to tie Trump to racism. Is there anything they haven’t thrown at Trump? Not much.
“Imagine what Trump would say if he had a record like this – [his]?” Just imagine.
Barry, just imagine if you had half of your records (in question) thrown at you?
Does Ted not know he is on the same extermination list as Trump, by the RNC establishment? Apparently he doesn’t… or doesn’t want to remember.
The same people would attack Cruz as the wrong guy and unacceptable. If not for Trump, they would be focusing their aim on Cruz. And it would be coming from both sides, conservatives and estabo marshmallows, for the same reasons as Trump.
Could Cruz handle that or sustain under that pressure? I don’t know. Trump is clearly drawing all the fire. Even media diverted its attacks to Trump. Good cover for Cruz.
Maybe he should be thanking Donald for running interference for him. Which reminds me, with this campaign against Trump, why hasn’t Cruz done better? He should be able to clean up with all this help against his biggest opponent.
So why has Ted not soared? If he hasn’t done better in these conditions, what’s wrong?
I was going to do a post on Obama’s statements and threats. But why give them more attention if we aren’t going to do anything about them anyway? They get plenty.
I thought about doing a post on Hillary’s latest lies. But they are just like all the other lies, and all the other posts. All blend into the septic stew.
I thought about doing one on the real principles Jesus espoused, you know, opposed to lessons liberals harp about. Nah. He drove the money changers from the temple and look where they went.
I thought about doing one of my trademark satires but they end up being too true.
Well, I did notice something weird about this presidential race. Everyone says it’s about the outsiders vs the establishment. It probably is; though this election also seems to be about story lines. Most every Republican candidate has their own story line they are pushing. Not to mention most of them also have a book.
They have constructed or extorted these story lines so that, in turn, it is not an election about a certain individual, it is about the story he/she is promoting. I’m led to think that we are supposed to vote for best story line. It’s not just an outsider story. It’s an outsider, non-politician, neuro-surgeon. It’s about a mega-mogul, celebrity, real estate developer and builder.
So with that background, someone like Cruz has a problem that even his story line is not that big of a deal. Then you have Carly vying for any attention as a woman and business executive turned politician. We’re not asked as much to judge their qualifications as their degree of separation from establishment and their creative story line. Some are naturally better at promoting their story lines than others.
I wonder if we have not now entered the age of the story lines in politics? Is that the natural extension of identity politics? I think it might be. Look on the ither side and you have Hillary running as … are you ready for it…a woman. Then she adds that she would be the ultimate outsider as the first woman. And she already has her own story line which she doesn’t even have to promote. Everyone knows it and does it for her. So the first woman, who was also first lady, married to the serial rapist president doesn’t really work but all the other parts of it are there for the extorting. Now, whether they planned or want it to, this becomes a battle of story lines. That is if you follow the tactics the left uses in politics. Obama was much the same way. The Kenyan, Indonesian black kid rise to president. (we’re still trying to digest that story line and some of us cannot)
Now Trump takes that to the next logical stage. He gave a speech wherein he goes on a rant talking about the details of Ben Carson’s story line — in brief: angry poor black kid to Christian, to top surgeon, to candidate. Media has already gone all-in after Carson’s story. Knocking the candidate’s story is a twofer for the media, it also attacks his trustability polls that are higher than anyone’s. Of course Jeb Bush’s story line that he tries to ignore is the third in line to the Bush dynasty. So instead he promotes his preferred story line, and also tells it in Spanish — a real plus in his case. That includes leaving out the part about Bloomberg’s Foundation promoting abortion around the globe. He tries to make it as attractive as possible.
So we also have Rubio pushing his Cuban ancestry, only in America, story-book story line. Christie pushes his tough guy prosecutor thug image. Trump pushes his anti-P/C story line which allows him the freedom to say just about anything that in some way fits or works in his favor. People seem to like that ballsy approach even if they occasionally blush. Kasich has his own story line, a player all the way. Oh, Carly promotes the ‘woman’ secretary to CEO, to president story. Fill in the others. Cruz may be out-storied.
Is it not about character or ability anymore but about the story line? You can expect that blunt approach from Democrats in the general election.(who are still searching for a black or Hispanic transsexual woman candidate – man doesn’t work) Whoever promotes their story line narrative the best wins. Bernie Sanders has his own story working. He and Hillary are vying for historical firsts. Trump is an expert promoting his. Do people just want a story? Are we bored with positions and policy preferring a narrative instead?
SO the love fest begins, I mean its a family thing… W trying to slay dragons for Jebby. For a guy who distanced himself from his brother not wanting to be defined by him, or the Bush name, now appears to be just that….only another Bush.
The RNC took down mentions of George Bush so there were no reminders to distract or harm Jeb in his cruise to the nomination. But a few things still managed to get in Jeb’s way. Now W has taken aim at Cruz. Well, I’ll be doggone. George W might have just hurt Jeb’s chances a lot more than he ever helped them, even if this was a fundraiser.
“I just don’t like this guy” – George W. Bush TRASHES Ted Cruz at Jeb Bush fundraiser
Apparently W doesn’t care much for Ted Cruz, as he was the only candidate that he trashed at a Jebby fundraiser. But for what it’s worth, he sees Cruz as the biggest threat to Jeb, not Donald Trump:
POLITICO – Inside a sleek Denver condominium, George W. Bush let a hundred donors to his brother’s campaign in on a secret. Of all the rival Republican candidates, there is one who gets under the former president’s skin, who he views as perhaps Jeb Bush’s most serious rival for the party’s nomination.
It isn’t Donald Trump, whose withering insults have sought to make Jeb pay a political price for his brother’s presidency. It also isn’t Marco Rubio, Jeb’s former understudy who now poses a serious threat to his establishment support.
“I just don’t like the guy,” Bush said Sunday night, according to conversations with more than half a dozen donors who attended the event.
That’s quite okay, Ol’ W, we aren’t all that fond of you or your brother right now either. Since you claimed to redefine Republican conservatives, I imagine you are a bit miffed that it didn’t stick. But then that redefinition was pretty much all in your mind too. You only wish that Cruz was a product of your imagination.
A simple question of how is it wrong becomes such a tough unanswered one except that “we concur with 97 % of scientists [who]concur that there is global warming.” That’s what we got from the Sierra Club president. They have no answers for what they call “the pause”. Sounds more like an episode from Rod Sterling.
Ted Cruz Exposes The Deception Global Warmists Have Been Peddling
Ted Cruz questioned Sierra Club President Aaron Mair, and his assertions that the Earth is warming, despite satellite data showing otherwise.
Video Transcript:
Cruz: Is it correct, that the satellite data over the last 18 years demonstrate no significant warming?
Mair: No
Cruz: How is it incorrect?
Mair couldn’t answer the question. He instead needed a sidebar with a colleague to formulate a cop-out answer.
I do find it highly interesting that the president of the Sierra Club, when asked what the satellite data demonstrate about warming, uhm, apparently is relying on staff.
Cruz then pressed Mair on the phenomenon known as “the pause.”
Cruz: Global warming alarmists call that “the pause” because the computer models say there should be dramatic warming and yet the actual satellites taking the measurement don’t show any significant warming.
Mair: But senator, 97 percent of the scientists concur and agree that there is global warming.
Cruz: Your response is quite striking. I asked about the science and the evidence – the actual data. We have satellites. They’re measuring temperature. That should be relevant. And your answer was, “Pay no attention to your lying eyes and the numbers the satellites show. Instead, listen to the scientists who are receiving massive grants who tell us do not debate the science.”
Mair then uttered what was interpreted as the Club’s official position.
Our planet is cooking up and heating and warming.
For the remainder of the questioning, Mair blindly repeated his talking point, refusing to retract the position when confronted with the damning evidence.
Mair: I’m saying I concur with 97 percent. We concur with the 97 percent scientific consensus with regards to global warming.
Cruz: But, but, but sir, would you, would you answer the question?
Mair: We are concurring with the 97 percent of the scientists. We concur with 97 percent.
Cruz: So does that mean you’re not willing to answer the question?
Mair: We concur with the preponderance of the evidence. But I concur with the 97 percent of scientists who concur that global warming is a fact.
Cruz: That undermines the credibility of any organization if you will persist in a political position regardless of what the science shows, regardless of the facts, regardless of the evidence and regardless of the data. That is not consistent, I would suggest, with sound public policy.
They sound like they concur with the 97 percent of scientists they pay to support their own position. Are we supposed to just trust them?
Isn’t that like pleading the 5th amendment to every question asked? So: ‘we agree with those that agree with those that agree and pay us.’ What’s the problem with that?
Hours after the debate, it was clear Fox was boasting about having a record number of viewers tune in to the debate. I imagine on Thursday night there were lots of things people could have be doing. But we knew the numbers were going to be big even before it, judging by the political interest so far. Why? We knew that too.
Fox tries to pat itself on the back for the debate coverage, which is pretty self-serving. I mean the nation is a train wreck: Obama just nuked us with an Iran deal, sanctuary cities are failing the citizens in them, riots and racism abound, inner city crime is spiking, terrorism even at home is on the rise, stagnant economic growth, scandal palooza, distrust in government and leadership, with a record number of candidates … and Fox is worried about the number of viewers it gets watching the first debate? Give it a break. Who is doing reality TV here, Fox or Trump? I think its the former.
This was not supposed to be a long post. I wanted it short. I don’t get what I want. But how can you do that with these continuing circumstances in this primary?
Everyone knows that Trump has been a boon for the campaign. We cannot measure what interest would be without him? You can’t do it. In fact, Trump brought in lots of viewers because of statements they cannot stifle, against their desires, and what has been happening in the last couple months.Like him or not he exploded interest, not a bad thing considering we always hear how few people are actively engaged in the process. So it is revealing that the very guy who brought in record numbers of viewers would also be the subject of attacks, even from media who have been gunning for him as a non-serious candidate from the beginning. What you’d expect. Trump has been their Golden Calf.
But then it goes to a different level. The opening question was about pledging allegiance to the GOP Party — an evolution in progress, controlled by some powerful interests. It was talked about already and they knew the answer. This was about getting him in front of a record millions of people to decline a pledge not to run on another platform. About making that the opening question, to force him to make a stand everyone already knew. They could have even worked it in somewhere else. It was the lead.
It was reminiscent of Newt in South Carolina where the opening is the gotcha personal question. By design we had an over-engineered debate from the onset. Then hardly allow him to explain why not. Trump was on the stand testifying. Now I am not a great fan or Trump supporter, you don’t have to be. But one cannot deny what he already brought to the table and contributed, at his own expense. So the gotcha was front and center. Who knows what Fox expected to accomplish?
What’s in a pledge?
I see the reason he should not swear to it based on principle. Why take it off the table? And why do that without getting something in return? Sounds like the opening act of Obama’s negotiation with Iran. You don’t give away your chips. But the word leverage should not be used. It’s negotiation 101. Others have reneged on the pledge. Others do not want to take pledges on many things, as a rule. I thought the estabos, as I call them, were against pledges? Think Grover Norquist. Politicians and RNC certainly oppose pledges when we demand their loyalty. Secondly, at this stage with the RNC, and what they have done over the past 5 years, what good is their word? So pledge to stand behind an organization; and pledge unwavering loyalty to a Party apparatus we can’t trust. Logical?
Now Fox is trying to kick the Golden Calf that brought the attention to this process and debate, as hard as it can. At the same time they pat themselves for the interest in the process as if it were their doing. And they were quick after the debate to congratulate themselves. Twenty four hours later and they are still bragging about it. Frank Luntz wasted no time afterward, showing his focus group was pissed at the pledge decline. But if explained in Trump’s terms, can they understand why pledging unwavering loyalty is such a problem?
In fact, it is part of the reason we are here. We have a disconnected Party leadership problem. Even Ted Cruz said multiple times that we conservative Republicans keep winning elections, and then leadership of the GOP fails us. It’s true. We elected the majority in Congress, then we elected the majority in the Senate. Did you see John Boehner or Mitch McConnell have a problem with taking that leadership role? Nope. They could have refused we would pick another. Now they run the RNC like its their private liberal lite committee, even holding it and the process hostage against the will of the people. Do we get mad? Sure. Do they care when we do? Nah.
So in that backdrop, along comes Trump who criticizes all the pols for being self-serving, career pols. Accurate? Relevant? Sure is. Now the first question on the docket in the first debate was will you swear unwavering loyalty to the Party — not to oppose it? Trump declines. The real point here is how do we know we can trust the RNC? We’ve been screwed and sold down the river so many times.
It is not like Democrats, who have ultra-left wing progressives determine the agenda. Obamacare, Iran, appointments, IRS, EPA, Keyestone Pipeline, drilling, energy, spending, executive orders, sanctuary cities, illegals, amnesty. It’s not the first time we’ve heard scuttle about a 3rd Party. Its been an active part of the Tea Party conversation. Does the Tea Party want to work with the GOP? Sure. Does the RNC want to work with the Tea Party candidates? Not so much. See how this works? We don’t need a GPS to see there are problems with this paradigm of theirs. So there is a reason that topic exists.
Now to just wipe that all off the table as if it does not exist? Can you? It should be the fear in the GOP that they are going the way of the Whigs. It should be a growing concern in the RNC that they are losing touch with the base or people. These Tea Party and disgust symptoms are only reminders that it needs to pay attention and show some loyalty to conservatives who make them and can break them. Ones they need to turn out to support their candidate. But now after the people develop a consensus and get behind someone with momentum, who actually speaks up; then all of a sudden it’s, wham, “we really need a pledge here.” Yep, they need a pledge and we need a credible Party with chutzpah.
Kerry lied but were we really expecting anything else? Sure Kerry tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. No doubt they figured we would find out. But again if lying is the means to the end, then once done it doesn’t matter if you know. Like so many other issues by Obama, lying is the means.
Cotton And Cruz Are Right: John Kerry Is Lying About The Iran Deal
Proof that Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Texas Senator Ted Cruz have it right in opposing Obama’s deal to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons has surfaced from a most unlikely source: French official, Jacques Audibert, the senior diplomatic adviser to President Francois Hollande. ../
“He basically said, if Congress votes this down, there will be some saber-rattling and some chaos for a year or two, but in the end nothing will change and Iran will come back to the table to negotiate again that would be to our advantage,” Sanchez told Rogin in an interview. “He thought if the Congress voted it down, that we could get a better deal.”
We got Kerry’s ten year deal from hell. It’s hard to imagine something that wouldn’t be better than what they got, especially when they started with failed principles. We could say Kerry swift-boated America. When even French question the thing, it has to be bad. But then what do liars do? So Cruz and Cotton must be painted as the bad guys.
President of the Conservative Victory Committee Brent Bozell III endorsed Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for president on Friday, urging conservative Republicans to rally behind Cruz “immediately.”
“I wholeheartedly endorse Ted Cruz for president of the United States, and urge all conservatives nationwide to rally behind Ted, immediately,” said Bozell in his endorsement video. “The Republican party establishment is counting on conservatives to be divided, so that they can nominate a moderate, do-nothing candidate. Make no mistake: If the Republican Party repeats what it’s done for the last two elections, Republicans will lose. I guarantee it.”
Bozell praised Cruz as a brave candidate who would defy the entrenched interests of Washington’s political class.
“If, on the other hand, we nominate a principled, passionate conservative America can count on to restore her greatness, there will be an outpouring of support,” he continued. “We need a courageous conservative who tells the truth and does what he promises. We need to nominate an inspiring leader, who’s proven he’s willing to take on the Washington cartel and buck the political establishment of both parties. We need a leader who will win and reignite the promise of America.”
“And there’s some good conservatives running for president,” Bozell added. “But we need more than a ‘campaign’ conservative. We need a consistent conservative who has led the fights important to us. Ted Cruz is this leader. I support Ted Cruz for president unconditionally and enthusiastically.”
I’ll call this the first of many pleas. I knew it was a case of division, but I was hoping it would be with a number of establishment RINOS. Apparently the fearless establishment have been thinking of this too.(Bozell is no establishment) While the number of candidates and conservatives is great, it does raise those prospects.
So short of dividing the establishment RINOs, we have a limited choice. Though I think it too early to consolidate to that degree. But has anyone noticed the one guy that has not seemed very concerned is Jeb Bush? Trump has just been a weird distraction for him so far. Meanwhile, Jeb horded lots of money and his pac is poised like a vulture.
If the doors aren’t breaking down with more estabos, then we have to start strategizing. I take it RINOs are being shooed away by Jeb’s committee. I like Cruz but consolidate just yet? We also haven’t seen a debate or vetted anyone. I am a little surprised by this.
And if so, Cruz better be prepared for the ambush to follow if he unifies support. He will have incoming from both sides. Jeb has in effect had years to plan this run. Frank Luntz already seems to be concentrating on Cruz. Then the Left. I hope he’s ready.
“Don’t elect the village idiot.” …”Essence of Federalism”.
Tea Party-Backed Sen. Ted Cruz often cites the impact his father, Cuban immigrant Rafael Cruz, had on his current status as a conservative icon. The elder Cruz, who serves as a pastor in Texas, remains an outspoken advocate for traditional values and, during a recent speech in Foxboro, Mass., presented the case for mixing faith and politics.
He addressed members and guests of the Massachusetts Republican Assembly 4th Chapter, concluding that the “Bible talks a lot about politics,” going on to explain how God’s Word can direct voters.
I was glad to see more about the Cruz story because the news about it had no context. It was just “Ted Cruz booed by Christians”. They didn’t even mention the name of the organization he was speaking to. It’s amazing that, even with Christians, it makes a difference what part or group he was talking to. I heard rumors only some were booers, and that some might have been Leftist plants there to go after Cruz intentionally. Neither would surprise me.
By T. Becket Adams | September 11, 2014 | Washington Examiner
The people who booed Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, at an event Wednesday evening are “useful idiots,” according to the executive director of Christians United for Israel, the nation’s largest pro-Israel organization.
At an event hosted by In Defense of Christians, a group dedicated to the protection of Christian communities in the Middle East, the Texas senator abruptly ended his speech when a small but vocal group of attendees booed him after he praised Israel.
On Thursday, Christians United for Israel’s David Brog told the Washington Examiner that the hecklers distract from the real crisis of religious persecution in the Middle East.
Hecklers distracted the focus or was that the intended focus?
Would they ever boo or go after a liberal speaker in a similar manner? Would they, say, shut down a pro-abortion speaker? I have seen Christians be respectful to a fault.
“According to Alana Goodman, writing at the Washington Free Beacon, In Defense of Christians (IDC) was funded by a controversial Clinton donor that featured pro-Hezbollah and pro-Assad speakers.”
Clinton donor and Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire Gilbert Chagoury, who pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative in 2009, reportedly provided funding for the IDC summit.
Chagoury, says the Free Beacon, also has backed Lebanese politician Michel Aoun, Hezbollah’s main Christian ally in the country, according to United States diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks.
Well, golly gee! Sympathetic to Hebollah ? Is this an audience you want to influence? So maybe Cruz needs to have his staff better screen who he speaks to, now that he is in the big leagues. So he better watch his back. Now we have the case where the Left seems to be merely using and projecting the Christian label. It looks more like a cauldron of activism.
We have been reporting for a while now that Ted Cruz had put forth an amendment to rectify current issues with the IRS and the targeting of conservative groups. The language would have been as follows:
“(a) Offense. — It shall be unlawful for any officer of the Internal Revenue Service to, regardless of whether the officer or employee is acting under the color of law, willfully act with the intent to injure, oppress, threaten, intimidate or single out and subject to undue scrutiny for purposes of harassment any person or organization of any state –
“(1) based solely or primarily on the political, economic or social positions held or expressed by the person or organization; or
“2) because the person or organization has expressed a particular political, economic, or social position using any words of writing allowed by law.”
As you can see it not only would have protected Tea Party groups, but any group that might come under assault for their beliefs. Unfortunately Liberty Unyielding is reporting that the Democrats, who control the Senate, used their power to kill the amendment. Per the usual strategy, those doing the dirty work are not up for reelection this year so they have plenty of time for the populace to forget their assault on freedom. Here is the list of shame:
Patrick Leahy of Vermont
Dianne Feinstein of California
Charles Schumer of New York
Richard Durbin of Illinois
Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island
Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken of Minnesota
Chris Coons of Delaware
Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut
Mazie Hirono of Hawaii
So, the Democrats want to make sure that the IRS can continue to be used as a tool of political destruction. Of course, if the Republicans had controlled the Senate the vote would have probably have been similar just with different names. Neither side wants to give up that kind of power. Reason number (really big number goes here) that we should abolish the IRS and implement something that doesn’t resemble the East German Stasi circa 1950’s.
Just another nail in the coffin of freedom. Meanwhile, when it’s their Senatorial committee being spied on by the CIA, that’s some serious stuff. Can’t have that. There are laws! But people exercising their God-given rights of speech, dot Gov can suppress that any way they can — what’s the problem? Trot out the Constitution in defense of big-government.
“I have grave concerns that the CIA search may well have violated the separation of powers principles,” Feinstein said on the Senate floor. “I am not taking it lightly.”
Who cares about the IRS targeting people, but the ruling class can’t be spied on. I guess that law is, “No one but no one shall gore our Ox.”
(LA Times)”At some point during their work, Senate staff members gained access to the draft of an internal review the CIA had done of the interrogations. Senators say that internal review, which remains classified, was far more critical of the CIA than the agency’s official responses to their questions had been.CIA officials say the Senate aides were never supposed to have access to the draft, which they claim is covered by executive privilege. They began to investigate how the committee staff members had gained access to it.”
In fact, Dems will run interference for the IRS scandal. Sickening really.
Click the map to create your own at 
Right Ring 