Posted on 12/14/2015 4:10:22 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
For political veterans, much of what we're starting to hear about Ted Cruz has an eerily familiar ring. Too extreme. Unelectable. Scares people. A radical, not a conservative.
The American people will hear a lot about Cruz's extremism in the year ahead, just as they were told about Reagan’s. It may cause them to hesitate before supporting him. But over the course of the campaign, they'll be able to make that determination for themselves. In fact, Ted Cruz represents the mainstream of conservative thought in this country, just as Reagan did twoscore years ago. Reagan's victory vindicated everything we'd been saying for twenty years. A Cruz win next year would do so again.
Precisely 36 years ago, Reagan was on his way to the Republican nomination. George Will and the church ladies of the party were concerned, even trying to lure former President Ford into the race. Reagan was just too conservative to get elected. A few years earlier, Will had described Reagan's support as "kamikaze conservatives who thought the 1964 Goldwater campaign was jolly fun." The reasonable, establishment Republicans settled on Bush 1 as their candidate, and it was game on. Marco Rubio is, or will be, their choice this time. Same song, same singers....
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Let’s hope there’s no need. Let’s hope it’s Cruz!
I agree.
I sense that the circus atmosphere will have subsided to a great degree by election day.
We've had several in the GOP over the years that had those things and didn't get to the big show.
1980
1984
It took the insiders 20 years to get FedGov back where they wanted it after the Reagan years. Cruz could wipe out Obamacare, the climate agreement, and even a significant chunk of the $20T debt Obama is leaving our children. that would make McConnell and McCain sad, and Boehner would cry!
It’s not so amazing. Many here thought Carl Rove was a “brilliant bastard” for years.
trisham wrote:
“Reagan was handsome, charming and engaging. Cruz is brilliant and an exceptional debater. They are not the same.”
No, they are not. You are quite right. But that was not, of course, my point. The point was simply that Reagan was hated by the left for ideological reasons and to a large degree sneered at by more than a few Republicans because he didn’t belong to the right “club,” i.e., he was an outsider to D.C. who thought government should serve the people rather than the other way around, as so many in government today both democrat and, sadly, republican think. In this, I think, Reagan and Cruz are very much the same. The one different thing about Cruz is that he, unlike Reagan, is in D.C. although not of D.C. This is what the “club” does not like (in fact, I think they dislike that even more than his merely being an outsider) ... which, if you follow my thinking, makes him the man for the job.
So, give Cruz a chance. Reaganesque personally he is not, but Reaganesque philosophically he most certainly is. Let the voters get to know him for a while. He may just grow on people as they get to know him. Who knows, he may just grow on you.
The bar was lowered SO far for “O” that the concept of ‘unelectable’ is moot
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.