Posted on 01/01/2016 7:42:09 AM PST by Isara
Yes, Cruz is the real deal. No need to take my word for it. Just look and listen. It's as Limbaugh says: the left and the establishment right will always tell you who they fear the most.
Sure, they hate both Trump and Cruz. The hatred for Trump is understandable, from their standpoint. He makes republicans look bad – he's intolerant and generally causes them embarrassment. But the antipathy for Cruz is born of fear. They fear the end of the government gravy train if he get's elected. They fear that with Cruz at the helm, Americans may just discover they don't actually need Washington involved in every facet of their lives. They fear an uncompromising Constitutional standard bearer as head of the party.
So their strategy is to send out trusted surrogates to trash the candidate and place the seed of doubt in voter's minds (and big money backers) that a Cruz nomination will surely equal a Hillary win.
Case in point: Moderate republican shill and former George W. Bush communications director Nicolle Wallace said in an interview regarding Ted Cruz: "He is truly despised [by republicans] - he is not a team player" and is apparently the king of "hubris and egomania." She, like almost all other establishment hacks, pundits and politicians are just plain befuddled, as Wallace, with an uncomfortable laugh, tells the interviewer that Cruz is "at the top of the polls in Iowa, so I think voters are saying they just don't care."
The key here is not so much that Cruz is despised or is tops in hubris and egomania. No - it's that "he is not a team player." I'm reminded of the movie Johnny Dangerously. A gangster boss known as Johnny Dangerously is actually Johnny Kelly. His younger brother Tommy Kelly has no idea he is the notorious mob boss Dangerously. Tommy is appointed assistant District Attorney and vows to bring down the infamous gangster. The D.A., who's on the mob's take, invites Tommy to his palatial estate, which is all courtesy of gangster payoffs. He tells Tommy, he too could have what the D.A. has, as he proclaims, "It's all yours Tommy, if you play ball! What do you say?" – to which Tommy replies, "I'll see you in prison!"
With this unfortunate confirmation of the assistant D.A.'s lack of cooperation, the mob, unknown to Dangerously, attempts to then "take out" his younger brother Tommy.
Ted Cruz is Tommy Kelly. He must be taken out.
Wallace explains that, "these are good republicans who worked in the Bush administration and who clerked in the Supreme Court who say they would have a really hard time voting for Ted Cruz if he were the republican standard bearer."
What can you say to an exclamation such as that - but WOW! I've been holding my nose and pulling the lever for progressive establishment republicans since 1988 and these people have the nerve to cry over one conservative candidate? Look at who we've been conned and bullied into supporting, all for the good of the precious party! George H.W. Bush, the kinder/gentler progressive. Bob Dole, war hero, but his nomination was equivalent to a lifetime achievement award. George W. Bush, who merely pretended to be a conservative. Bush lied - my vote died. And of course the other two loser establishment picks: McCain and Romney.
And we're not allowed one candidate? This inner circle of power and control is very exclusive and conservatives are not allowed a seat at the table - and we certainly don't have the necessary accreditation to sit at the head of the table.
What have we conservatives been saying all along? If someone like Cruz or Trump gets the nomination, the establishment would much prefer a Hillary presidency and this is the exact veiled threat the establishment kingmakers sent Wallace out to disseminate.
They are scared to death of Ted Cruz. It is a delight to see and I personally count it as a gift to finally be able to back someone I believe in – not someone we have to settle on, or like Romney, try to convince ourselves that he will be okay. We finally have someone for whom we don't have to constantly wonder, "Is he for real this time?"
Cruz could have supported McDaniel during the runoff. If it’s okay for the DC Cartel to use all the money and power at its disposal to push Cochran, surely it’s okay for the anti-Capital Cronies to actively support the TEA party candidate.
I'll take McDaniels' word for it.
Beyond all that, while Cruz was helping McDaniels, your guy Donald J. Trump was endorsing the GOPe lead in the Senate, the guy who was out to defeat McDaniels, Mitch McConnell.
You are the one who said Cruz didn’t help until after Cochran had officially won the runoff. Had Cruz campaigned for McDaniel *during* the runoff, Cochran might have been defeated.
Btw, this is so typical. You asked what Cruz could have done. I gave you a simple, honest answer. In the same spirit, you could have explained why Cruz didn’t campaign for McDaniel during the runoff. Instead, you attempted to make the discussion about me.
It’s not about me.
Btw, this is so typical. You asked what Cruz could have done. I gave you a simple, honest answer. In the same spirit, you could have explained why Cruz didn’t campaign for McDaniel during the runoff. Instead, you attempted to make the discussion about me.
McDaniels thinks Cruz helped him. You don't think Cruz helped McDaniels. And it is strange that you ignore that McDaniel is fine with what Cruz did.
And if that upsets you, so be it. You're being way too sensitive.
You keep on skipping the point.
I certainly understand why you do.
You keep on skipping the point.
I didn't skip the point.
I said that I defer to McDaniels' judgement who seems to be so happy with what Cruz did for him that he wants Cruz to be president.
Cruz left the voting decision up to the people of Mississippi and we have no idea if McDaniels even invited a Cruz endorsement.
Yet you're not happy with all that, and that's certainly your right. Meanwhile you ignore Trump's endorsement of McConnell.
Using your unfortunate choice of words, you're so "typical".
Cruz supporters are amazing. As long as Cruz says what you want, you are unconcerned with actions or results. There is an actual action Cruz could have taken to possibly tip the vote in McDaniel’s favor. You seem relieved Cruz didn’t act. As if talk is what you prefer.
Btw, when are the hearings re the crimes committed in Mississippi scheduled for? Or have they already taken place. (It’s been a while, after all.) What were the results?
As long as Cruz says what you want, you are unconcerned with actions or results. There is an actual action Cruz could have taken to possibly tip the vote in McDaniel's favor.
Nobody is stopping you from identifying what you think Cruz should have done, yet you haven't. Meanwhile you smear me and all Cruz supporters with your dumb remark.
You seem relieved Cruz didn't act. As if talk is what you prefer.
Stop! Don't put dumb words in my mouth, you're not smart enough.
Btw, when are the hearings re the crimes committed in Mississippi scheduled for? Or have they already taken place. (It’s been a while, after all.) What were the results?
You're in Mississippi. Why don't you ask your own state's Mississippi Republican Party Executive Committee what became of their investigation.
I can explain. Before the 2014 election, Cruz announced that he would not campaign or otherwise involve himself in any Republican Senatorial election.
Texas voters understood exactly why he adopted this stance: it freed him from having to endorse or otherwise support his "colleague" -- the state's senior Senator, John Cornyn -- against his challengers.
Recall as well that Cruz was initially appointed to the Republican Senate Election committee. However, he resisted the committee's eventual decision to take an active role in the Republican primaries and support all incumbent GOP senators against their (generally) Tea Party challengers. Cruz argued that the committee should remain neutral in GOP primaries. As a consequence, he resigned.
‘Nobody is stopping you from identifying what you think Cruz should have done, yet you haven’t.’
You can’t be serious? I identified what Cruz could have done up front. Now you’re denying it?? That’s irrational, and seriously so.
As to the hearings, I’m asking about the US Senate hearings Cruz called for. What was the outcome of those?
Interesting info. Thank you.
So what’s the bottom line? The Capital Cronies stole the election from McDaniel while Cruz remained neutral? But after the theft was complete Cruz sprang into action and called for hearings? What was the outcome of the hearings? Was anyone indicted?
I all ready dealt with your first point. You phrased the statement like you were bringing up a new point.
Don't blame me for your twisted communications skills.
As to the hearings, I'm asking about the US Senate hearings Cruz called for. What was the outcome of those?
US Senate hearings? Document the call for that.
The illegality didn’t occur during the primary per se. It occured during the runoff. Cruz styles himself as anti Capital Cronies and the one who will stand up to DC. How are either of these claims of any value to conservatives if the practical result is that Cruz will stand silently by while the DC Cartel blatantly and illegally steals a runoff from a true conservative?
And why is it so abhorrent to Cruz supporters if a nonsupporter asks why there isn’t more action to accompany the words?
So then Cruz remained neutral in the MS primary based on his previously stated principles.
I identified the obvious action Cruz could have taken. What more you want or need is something you’ll have to clarify. I did my part.
So Cruz never called for hearings re the Mississippi fraud? Or he called for localized hearings in a body to which he did not belong? Was this an effective action on his part? Did it produce the desired results?
‘So then Cruz remained neutral in the MS primary based on his previously stated principles.’
So he’s not really anti Capital Cronies after all? If they want to steal an election from a conservative, Cruz is ‘see no evil?’
Your point about endorsing has been addressed three or four times now, by two posters.
So Cruz never called for hearings re the Mississippi fraud? Or he called for localized hearings in a body to which he did not belong?
As I already pointed out to you... You're in Mississippi. Why don't you ask your own state's Mississippi Republican Party Executive Committee what became of their investigation.
Was this an effective action on his part? Did it produce the desired results?
Cruz did the best that he could and he was the only one in his position to make such a call. If you think he should have done something else about the investigation, then be specific and say what.
Cruz isn't a king nor is he member of the Mississippi Republican party.
I.e., the run-off is still the primary.
How are either of these claims of any value to conservatives if the practical result is that Cruz will stand silently by while the DC Cartel blatantly and illegally steals a runoff from a true conservative?
Cruz promised to stay out of the primaries. He kept his promise.
McDaniel doesn't feel that he was given short shrift. Why is he wrong?
And why is it so abhorrent to Cruz supporters if a nonsupporter asks why there isn't more action to accompany the words?
You asked a question. I answered it. I never said it was an abhorrent question.
Again and again and again....Cruz did not know that there was fraud occurring. McDaniel first documented that fraud had occurred three days after the election. To say that Cruz looked away knowingly as fraud was occurring doesn't line up with the facts.
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.