Posted on 12/13/2015 7:33:18 AM PST by Michael van der Galien
In what's more evidence that Donald Trump is becoming completely unhinged, he is now stooping so low as to label Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz "a bit of a maniac":
"I donât think heâs qualified to be president⦠I donât think he has the right temperament. I donât think heâs got the right judgment⦠You look at the way heâs dealt with the Senate, where he goes in there like a â you know, frankly like a little bit of a maniac. Youâre never going to get things done that way."
He added:
"Look, I built a phenomenal business. Iâm worth many, many billions of dollars. I have some of the greatest assets anywhere in the world. You canât walk into the Senate, and scream, and call people liars, and not be able to cajole and get along with people. Heâll never get anything done. And thatâs the problem with Ted."
It's rather fascinating that this is coming from the most bombastic and maniacal presidential candidate in history. Almost every single one of his proposals are downright outlandish, and he calls everyone who dares disagree with him "a loser" and worse. See how he smeared Dr. Ben Carson by calling him "pathological."
What's more, Trump's latest jabs at Cruz prove that he has no idea what real conservatives want. Cruz promised them to stand up for their values in Washington D.C., even if the establishment would hate him for it. That's exactly what he's done, and it's one of the main reasons that he's now so popular among Evangelicals, very conservative voters, and those who identify themselves with the Party.
If I was Cruz, I'd politely ask The Donald to attack me even more. After all, this will only end up helping, rather than hurting him.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Thanks. I like brietbart (pro-Cruz) and the conservative treehouse site (pro-trump) and read both to get well-balanced info. If anyone out there knows how the conservative websites fall ideologically in this election cycle, feel free to speak up.
I'm not challenging the report. If that's what it is, it is what it is. It takes money to run for President and it has to come from somewhere.
However, it is apparent to me that his donors either a.) aren't influencing his positions or b.) already agree with his positions. As evidence, Cruz remains firmly against ethanol subsidies and mandates -- which are milk and honey to Wall Street.
Yes, I'm disappointed in the two votes. But, to a degree, doesn't that fall under the heading of Monday morning quarterbacking? After all, giving presidents fast-track trade authority has been routine since the Nixon administration. The only reason to question TPA is who the president currently happens to be -- a concern that probably won't apply to the next president.
The Corker bill was a bad idea. It intent, however, was not necessarily so bad. It was supposed to insure that Congress had a voice on any agreement with Iran -- to keep the president from styling it as an "executive agreement", which wouldn't require any approval by Congress. Only Jeff Sessions voted against it (confirming his credentials as the best Senator in the nation).
As it turned out, this president ignored Congress anyway -- so the Corker bill never came into play. It was a dead letter.
So, while Cruz's votes on these two issues might be disappointing, one was routine, the other academic in terms of effect.
In other words, no big deal.
“So, while Cruz’s votes on these two issues might be disappointing, one was routine, the other academic in terms of effect.”
So you don’t think that calls Cruz’s judgment into question?
I find it disturbing that any Republican senator would vote to give Barack Obama fastrack authority on anything. For any reason. Especially on a trade deal that is supposed to be so bad. It just does not make sense. I listened to Ted’s tortured rationale for his vote and it still didn’t make sense.
Corker Bill same deal. Ted Cruz is supposed to be a Constitutional expert. What the Congress essentially did was water down their own power to ratify treaties. What Ted Cruz as a Consitutional conservative should have done was continue to assert that the Iran deal was a treaty not an Executive Agreement and demand that it be submitted as a treaty for ratification.
These two dubious votes and Ted Cruz’s seeming inability to articulate what he will do with the 11-20 million illegals currently in the US are what cooled me off on him.
I like Cruz and he would be a kickazz Attorney General but he’s not ready to be President. He will likely win Iowa although don’t count Carson out and then Trump is going to run the table. The sooner its over the happier I will be.
If I agree with him on virtually everything else, why should I dismiss him for what amounts to two minor transgressions?
Hell, I've made mistakes, too. More than two of them, in fact.
Well me too but our lapses in judgment didn’t affect the safety or prosperity of the country. In the Senate you are supposed to make the right choice. I frankly don’t see how Ted Cruz a constitutional scholar could have made those missteps. Especially the Corker Bill. Plus what was he thinking to give any leeway to Barack Obama on anything? It does not compute.
On the other hand, he's got a higher batting average than any other senator -- with the possible exception of Jeff Sessions.
I’m not certain who I like better now, Trump or Cruz. But what would be awsome is if Cruz wins in Iowa even though he’s opposed to ethanol subsidies!
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.