Posted on 05/31/2016 1:56:31 PM PDT by Beautiful_Gracious_Skies
Cruz Control -
Cruz helped to breed his own nemesis. And what does he have to show for it? Is his style of “true” conservatism now the more popular, the more compelling, the better understood? For someone so intelligent and so renowned as a debater, it’s hard to remember any of Cruz’s arguments. Admittedly, he was debating legions of opponents—a case where party leaders really did let the good candidates down, as mentioned above.
Partly, however, his fluent arguments lacked a center, a focus. He had two rhetorical modes—the preacher and the debater. One was earnest and revivalist, summoning ultimate appeals to right and wrong, salvation and damnation; the other was ceremonial, lawyerly, and dazzling, full of cut-and-thrust and aiming at applause and victory. Neither was presidential, strictly speaking, because the president doesn’t preach and never has to debate anyone, at least officially.
Cruz needed a third style, more deliberative and suited to fellow citizens. He needed to unite the principles of right and wrong with calm, deliberative judgments about what is advantageous for Americans to do here and now. In that way he—and the conservative movement—could help to cultivate what Abraham Lincoln called a “philosophical public opinion.” Instead, Cruz let his forensic victories demarcate the boundaries of true conservatism—a string of positions each slightly to the right of his main competitors.
Like Marco Rubio, Cruz entered national politics as a champion of the Tea Party. He shared the Tea Party’s longing to return American politics to some constitutional limits, an important and altogether laudable principle. But neither he nor Rubio (nor, needless to say, any of the party elders) turned that vague longing into a compelling political case for an essential agenda. If the Constitution actually were imperiled, wouldn’t you expect this to be the highest and probably most urgent message to voters?
Yet restoring the Constitution remained a series of talking points (more elaborate in Cruz’s speeches than in anyone else’s, granted) rather than an organizing cause around which the conservative movement might reinterpret and realign itself. Doubtless, Rubio and Cruz would have picked federal judges with the Tea Party’s concerns in mind. But decades of experience have proved that it takes more than one branch to halt, much less reverse, the constitutional decay, and that the judiciary needs support, pressure, and direction from public opinion and the political branches in order to do its part under these circumstances.
This failure to take seriously the Tea Party’s warning that corruption had eaten deeply into constitutional foundations, and that government was slipping beyond the control of the governed, left conservatives and Republicans searching, as usual, for a purpose. The sense of a dead end was reinforced by Chief Justice John Roberts’s tortuous decisions saving Obamacare, twice, in 2012 and 2015. If relimiting the government by constitutional means was not an option, said, in effect, a lot of indignant Republican and independent voters, then what is left but to use the system as it is, and try placing a strong leader, one of our own, someone who can get something done in our interest, at the head of it?
After the Tea Party, the next stop on the populist train was Trump Tower.
(This is an excerpt found under the heading Cruz Control)
Not only did Lyn’ Ted LOSE, as a Natural Born Canadian, he was not even eligible. Cruz is done, needs to QUIT, to stop scheming, stop stealing delegates, and just GO HOME. No amount of words will recover from the disaster that is Cruz.
I know. The bigger question is why is our party putting up ineligible candidates?
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss....
Uniparty -globalist- NWO- NAU
Cubanadians are as ineligible as Kenyanesians.
The Cruz campaign made a few mistakes.
1) Canadian birth topic should have been raised by Cruz himself early. He could have easily neutralized it and made it a non-issue. But he let others bring it up and put him on the defensive.
2) He did not have a sound-byte theme. It took a minimum of 3 sentences to explain his position on anything. Immigration? Trump could say: The wall. the Cruz response was longer.
3) His campaign boasted a ground game. But outside of IA that was the most damaging lie of the Cruz campaign. He had 500,000 small donors and another 1,000,000 supporters who couldn’t afford to donate. His campaign could have turned us into his ground game. That is 300 volunteers per Congressional district (on average). Of course some districts had 2,000 volunteers on his email list and other congressional districts had under 50.
If Cruz had activated his ground game in the SEC when he announced he would have won the SEC ... and the nomination.
But he had no ground game in GA. I’ve now talked to so many of his supporters in GA who aggressively tried to find it and could not.
Cruz is a comprehensive fake. An ineligible candidate, probably not even a U.S. citizen, without the ground game that was supposed to carry him to victory, who started lying about his main opponent’s PUBLIC POSITIONS.
How did Cruz think he could get away with lying about WHAT TRUMP WAS SAYING?
Curious how you seem motivated to do exactly what you accuse Cruz of doing.
Yes, when Trump flip-flopped on issues, Cruz cherry picked tbe flip or flop to pin on Trump that was not Trump’s position at that point in time.
But Cruz is clearly a citizen and clearly a Natural Born citizen. That issue was decided when everyone agreed that Romney, born in Mexico, was a Natural Born Citizen.
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.