Posted on 05/30/2016 8:23:43 AM PDT by conservative98
When Donald Trump collected a few unbound delegates last week, surpassing the 1,237 needed to clinch the Republican nomination for president, expectations that the national convention could be the most dramatic in modern times evaporated.
“Now, it will be the most entertaining,” said Randy Evans, a party-wise man from Georgia, with a nod to the reality TV star’s promise to “put some show biz” into the July convention in Cleveland.
But there remains an important, unscripted drama yet to unfold in the tempestuous relationship between Trump and his chief rival, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.
Although Trump will arrive in Cleveland as the victor and Cruz the vanquished, the politics of the moment suggest that Trump needs Cruz — to reassure nervous conservatives — more than Cruz needs Trump, whose defeat in November would fulfill Cruz’s frequent prediction and best serve the 45-year-old Texan’s future presidential ambitions.
“If he does not endorse and Trump loses, Cruz gets to step out on Nov. 9 and say, ‘See what I said,’ ” said Evans, a member of the Republican National Committee’s Rules Committee who, as chairman of the Republican National Lawyers Association, stayed neutral in the race. +In Cleveland, Trump may need Cruz more than Cruz needs him photo Drew Angerer U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speaks to the media as he returns to his office at the U.S. Capitol on May ... read more
“Cruz is a brilliant strategist, a long-term player. He’s got cards to play, and I fully expect him to play a few of those cards,” Evans said. “I think Cruz’s theme will be to say, `You’re the nominee, but I’m the party. You’re the name on the ballot, but I’m the one who represents, who epitomizes what it means to be a Republican.’”
Cruz ended his campaign May 3 after a bitter defeat in Indiana, dropping out shortly after lashing out at the man who had spent months calling him “Lyin’ Ted.”
“This man is a pathological liar,” Cruz said of Trump. “He doesn’t know the difference between truth and lies. He lies practically every word that comes out of his mouth.” +In Cleveland, Trump may need Cruz more than Cruz needs him photo Nicholas K. Geranios Jennifer Fetters of Bellevue, Wash., works the Ted Cruz booth at the Washington state GOP convention May 19.
Cruz also called Trump “utterly amoral,” adding that “morality does not exist for him.”
“I don’t see how you can take those words back, particularly if part of your appeal is that you’re not a traditional politician, that ‘I tell it like it is,’ ” University of Houston political scientist Richard Murray said. “I can’t see how that would work.”
For many admirers of Cruz, the very thought of endorsing Trump remains repugnant. +In Cleveland, Trump may need Cruz more than Cruz needs him photo Rodger Mallison Delegates cheer as Sen. Ted Cruz speaks at the Republican Party of Texas state convention in Dallas on May 14.
“Cruz should maintain his sterling conservative brand and stay far away from the Trump train and its inevitable wreckage,” said CNN contributor Amanda Carpenter, Cruz’s former communications director in the Senate. “Even if Trump wins the White House, he’ll have done it in a low-down, dirty way that no one with any integrity should be proud to endorse.”
*Snrk* Woooowww. Defensive, aren’t we?
Proof or GTFO.
Is that true?
Or have conservatives already come around to supporting Trump?
And the second assumption is that the person Trump needs is Ted Cruz.
Is that true?
Is there some bloc out there that won't vote for Trump unless Cruz convinces them?
And if Trump needs somebody to help him, but not Cruz, then who?
Excuse me?
He’s not eligible.
[ Loving to see FreeRepublic using Alinski tactics against Ted Cruz. ]
Ha, I got that from CW.
There have been many lies about both Trump and Cruz. However, since you asked about Ted Cruz:
- He’s a 7 mountains dominionist
- His father is the man in the picture with LHO
- He’s stealing delegates from Trump
- He’s had affairs with 5 women
- He’s stacking the RNC rules committee with delegates to steal the nomination from Trump.
There’s no proof that any of the above are true.
1: He sure seems to be, considering that he’d accepted what his father says about him. And Beck.
2: *Shrug* A photo’s a photo. I have no idea how true it is. Guy in it bears a resemblance, but okay, I’ll give you that one.
3: Depends on how you define ‘stealing.’ Personally I call ignoring the will of the voters in order to win ‘stealing.’ But this is ground that we’ve gone over before and I doubt that we’ll EVER agree on.
4: Do you want us to put ‘alleged’ every time we discuss Amanda Carpenter or something? The NE made one claim. We’re discussing that claim; neither of us know of it’s truth or untruth, so we can’t exactly lie about that, can we?
5: See #4.
Not exactly a knockout punch IMHO.
Flying monkeys?
So much for respect. It’s called a ping list.
This is a public forum; if you don’t like it, take it to private chats.
I have no problem with everyone discussing the issues and the possibilities. The problem I do have is that many people, again this is true for Trump and Cruz supporters, repeat things as if they are true. And then repeat them so much that they begin to actually believe they are true instead of believing what they actually are; at best rumors, in some cases half truths, at worst outright lies. Really they are all just lies.
For example, number 3 above, let’s just go ahead and say we agree that ignoring the will of the voters in order to win is stealing. There still is no proof that is happening.
In every example I listed there is no proof they are true, but you know that Trump supporters repeat them as if they are absolutely true. Just as I know there are Cruz supporters who say Trump said he wants to raise the minimum wage and absolutely believe they are telling the truth.
Are there not enough actual ‘wrong’ things with either Trump or Cruz that we can’t talk about them without bringing in the rumors and lies?
I think if you were not so invested in defending Trump and your fellow supporters, you would agree that some here do tell “lies” about Cruz. Of course it happens, just like some Cruz supporters tell lies about Trump. Why pretend like it doesn’t happen?
Is there a better term than flying monkeys? I think it’s kind of funny and appropriate based on the actions. I will add I have never liked or used any of the derogatory terms that some people use for Trump supporters
Come on, it’s no ping list. You find someone that doesn’t exactly agree with your position and the horde is summoned. And one by one you poke and pester until the person gets fed up and leaves. Which is great for achieving homogenized group-think. Not so great for Freepathons though, is it?
Personally, what I wanted was to specifically address what was being called ‘lies’ and exactly what the accusation was that he was throwing at me.
Kinda tired of the bickering, but that doesn’t mean that I’m just going to let myself get slammed without defending myself.
No, I get it. The bickering is annoying. I think it’s more annoying that valid but “non-conforming” comments are ridiculed and idiotic/non-conservative comments are completely ignored in the name of unity.
You’re excused. Your understanding of the Constitution is pathetic.
Really?
Name all of the foreign-born/foreign parent presidents. Otherwise, they seemed to have the same understanding I do.
You Texans had better make sure he’s even a US citizen before you re-elect the whining horndog. I do not like green eggs and Cubanadians.
As I hope you know, presidential candidates who were confirmed to be eligible were born outside the US:
George Romney (Mexico)
John McCain (Panama)
They were elected?
McCain I can almost see, but even then, I don’t think Congress gets to redefine original-intent definitions of the framers of the Constitution. Romney would have needed a CRBA, but probably was not a NBC.
Everyone knew what it meant, right up until the cultural revolution of the 60s when the Communists took over. Today’s naturalization training material still defines NBC as “born domestically to American citizens”.
No, of course not. If you read my post even halfway carefully, you would see that I said “Presidential candidates,” not “Presidents.”
Both candidates were considered to be eligible. Romney’s candidacy didn’t go the full run, but there were no serious challenges and there were authoritative articles that mollified the few challengers.
On 5/2/08, the Senate passed a nonbinding resolution, finding McCain to be eligible. Neither Hellary nor Skippy challenged him.
And if you read my post even halfway carefully, you would see that I said..."foreign-born/foreign parent presidents".
Romney...there were no serious challenges
But there should have been.
the Senate passed a nonbinding resolution, finding McCain to be eligible.
It was immaterial, had no legal meaning, simple political theater.
Neither Hellary nor Skippy challenged him.
That's because Muckain was a decoy, a place-holder, a RINO member of the Uniparty, a not-so-convincing bit player, with no intention whatsoever of winning the election.
He was simply doing his job.
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.