Posted on 02/04/2016 5:20:20 PM PST by conservativejoy
The Iowa caucus results left me with some dark thoughts. While Ted Cruz won, second-place Donald Trump and third-place Marco Rubio are clearly the media's two favorite candidates, albeit in very different ways.
Trump and Rubio. Just what the Republican Party needs: a choice between insulting Muslims at home and using military force against them abroad.
This may be the most powerful case for conservatives to support Cruz: At least he would save us from Rubio and Trump.
Hyperbolic, I know, especially since I do agree that assimilation has been a challenge in Western countries that have accepted large numbers of Muslim immigrants, and that there is a legitimate military component to the war on terrorism. But Trump's blunderbuss approach to Muslim immigration and Rubio's force-friendly foreign policy are overreactions at best and entirely counterproductive at worst. They are also illustrative of the dilemma a Trump-Rubio race for the GOP nomination would pose, and why Cruz may well be our best option.
I know that on the surface, there is a lot to like about Rubio's candidacy. The freshman senator from Florida seems like a nice guy and his supporters are generally nice too. Moreover, as a relatively young Latino candidate, Rubio presents a fresh face for a party in which too many Americans feel unwelcome. While Trump's appeal to struggling working-class whites and disaffected Republicans who believe their party leaders ignore them is important, he also clearly compounds some of the GOP's problems reaching out beyond its traditional demographic core. The billionaire does one form of outreach at the expense of the other.
Rubio is different. In his person and campaign pitch, he offers voters something new. That's especially important in a campaign where the Republican nominee is likely to face an older Democratic nominee who is a throwback to the 1990s and is already experiencing problems recreating the Obama coalition, especially its appeal to younger Democrats. (The alternative, who is appealing to those younger Democrats, is a septuagenarian socialist.)
Yet for all Rubio's exhortations for eschewing the politics of yesterday, he doesn't seem to have learned many lessons from George W. Bush's presidency. Yes, he is tougher on domestic spending, though one worries that what his entitlement reforms will save his military adventurism will wind up spending. And he has admirably partnered with Mike Lee on some interesting legislative initiatives. But on big questions like war and immigration, he sounds like Bush 2.0. His campaign announcement knocked Democratic decrepitude but contained few policy prescriptions that would have been out of place in a conservative politician's speech in the 1980's.
And what of Trump? He is not only a blowhard and a bit of an arrogant jerk, but his campaign has attracted some real nasty pieces of work to boot. Yes, there are well-meaning Trump enthusiasts. And as someone who voted for Ron Paul twice I understand the peril of judging a candidate or political movement by its most unhinged internet followers. But as Trump's favorite book tells us, by their fruits ye shall know them (Matthew, not Two Corinthians).
Trump does seem to understand that the Bush way of dealing with the Middle East and the American homeland, especially as it pertains to Iraq and immigration, went horribly wrong. And while some of his alternatives may be equally flawed in the opposite direction, it does add some needed perspective to the conservative movement's consternation about Trump's pre-Iowa poll numbers. Indeed, while I agree with virtually every word of National Review's anti-Trump symposium, it's hard to suppress the sense that conservatives who mostly thought the Bush administration was wonderful are getting a taste of the dismay I felt during those years.
"Where was this unified conservative outrage over the bank bailout in 2008?" asked the columnist Charlie Hurt. "Where is the unified conservative outrage over launching a trillion-plus dollar war paid for with nothing but debt, where is the outrage over Republican politicians who come along and supported amnesty?"
Where indeed. As it happens, Rubio was a bit better on that bank bailout than Trump. But on the other two issues? When Jeb Bush was getting beaten up for refusing to concede the Iraq war was a mistake, Rubio said he wouldn't have invaded knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction. But he's made more public statements suggesting he thinks withdrawing from Iraq was a bigger error than invading in the first place and he's been supportive of repeating the regime change experiment in Libya and Syria.
Similarly, Rubio has disavowed his Gang of Eight immigration plan, arguing that the threat of ISIS entering the United States has changed everything. But the immigration system's national security implications were evident long before he took his earlier position in 2013. And when he says we have been trying to solve our country's immigration problem for 30 years, he omits the fact that amnesty passed 30 years ago.
Neither Rubio nor Trump is the champion of true conservatives. Fortunately, there is a third top-tier candidate in the race, the one who actually won Iowa. I have my misgivings about him too, especially since we no longer have Rand Paul in the race to keep him honest on libertarian issues.
I'm not sure I will vote for him. But avoiding a Trump versus Rubio race is about as powerful a case for Cruz as I can imagine.
Lib, here you are posting nonstop drivel, again.
Did you get tired of preaching to the consistent crybabies? Misery doesn’t love company, I guess.
If St Raphael is so wonderful, why don’t you stick to posting all of the wonderful and glorious attributes about him? Why are you so compelled to keep trying - and failing - to take a person down....with nothing but your weak projections?
What about the CRuz staffers who’ve posted unethical misinformation....just as the caucuses were beginning, in IA? Does that not sound like ‘nasty pieces of work’? Maybe they took a few cues from Romney’s tactics. Oh, that Jeff Roe is a ‘nasty piece of work’, from what we’ve all read.
It has already passed in the Senate,
thanks to “dirty trick”-Cruz.
that explains a lot.
Cruz pushed Roberts ( his long time friend) to Bush and we now have Obamacare. What makes you think his other choices would be better?
Yes, he is.
It's a good thing that I am immune to MSM BS. Daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly doesn't matter.
I'd rather take advice in this area from my dog.
Or recognize the wisdom of a wise editorial writer from the Czech Republic :
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president."
2008 Czech newspaper editorial
Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are naturalized U.S. citizens and therefore are ineligible to lawfully be POTUS. Their status as naturalized U.S. citizens is stated unambiguously in the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 without which Ted Cruz would have been incapable of acquiring any U.S. citizenship at all. Both candidates are funded by major Washington D.C lobbyists linked to organizations hostile to the conservative movement: Club for Growth, Goldman Sachs, etc. Ted Cruz has engaged in highly unethical election fraud and false statements; and is therefore unfit to represent ethical constituents.
62 senators voted yea to this, Cruz votes no its 61 and it still gets through.
your criticism is fallacious.
There are also people who are aware that in addition to peanut farmers turned governor, our history of failed presidents includes another famous businessman: mining engineer and humanitarian relief organizer Herbert Hoover.FDR lived politically on the corpse of the Hoover administration in precisely the same way that Obama has lived on the corpse of the economic reputation of GW Bush. Notwithstanding that FDR policies were indistinguishable from Hoover policies.
I do not take for granted that a businessman will operate the government efficiently, simply because he is a businessman. Carter didn’t - and before him, Hoover did not. Trump has some of the same attitudes that Hoover had.
And the number one reason to vote for Cruz is, well, to avoid a shaming letter with an “F” grade. :-)
What part of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952? I presume it’s the latest version of the applicable law, right?
For Pete’s sake. I have for years gotten similar letters from campaigns. This is nothing new. They went in the trash like all other campaign mailers.
The Supreme Court Justice issue is so serious. No nearly enough is being said about it.
You're a liar....respectfully of coarse.
Ted Cruz initially voted for it. When the bill went to the house, a secret deal between Boehner and McConnell was hashed out. When it came back to the senate, McConnell attempted to hide the secret deal from Jeff Sessions, Cruz and Mike Lee. When it was exposed, McConnell attempted to deceive them yet again.
Ted Cruz stood on the senate floor and called Mitch McConnell a LIAR. Did you miss this lil piece of history?
The TPP has not been ratified by a single nation. The signing today in Auckland, New Zealand was simply an acknowledgment that an agreement had been reached.
Since the content of TPP has been public for months I think we can stop calling it a secret deal.
The TPP has not been voted on, so it has not passed the Senate.
Hello, anybody home?? Trump is not Jimmy Carter.
That is absolutely false. Ted Cruz had two picks for SC Justice, neither of them Roberts. His first choice was Mike Luttig. He only supported Roberts after he became the nominee.
It was the corrupt tactics of Reid in the Senate (reconciliation) and Pelosi in the House that gave us Obamacare.
Cruz would be great. Hope he wins. Rubio I don’t know. Trump hard to say - he does not appear to have any core principles.
I’m voting Cruz. I’m also in complete ignore mode toward Fox News. They are endlessly anti-Cruz and little else. They go for scandal hunt to scandal hunt to scandal hunt. They ignore that Rubio also had the violation mailings and the Carson Campaign tweets. They have become less reliable than the National Enquirer.
As for Rubio, he burned up any chance at earning my respect with his repeated dishonest attacks on Cruz during the debates. I distrust him. I dislike him. I disagree with him on several key issues and distrust him on the others.
Trump is more interesting in smears than in issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.