Posted on 04/30/2015 9:30:06 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Already creating distance from the last nominee of his party, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz took aim at Mitt Romney's infamous "47%" remark that created a firestorm of controversy during the 2012 campaign.
Speaking about the Latino vote and the economy to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Texas senator bluntly critiqued on Wednesday Romney's personal assessment that as a candidate he didn't need to worry about that part of the vote because they were government-dependent and would reelect the president in 2012.
"Where he got clobbered was 47%," he said. "I think Romney is a good man who had a hard campaign, but I cannot think of a statement in all of politics that I disagree with more strongly."
Cruz, who entered the 2016 campaign last month and often criticizes his party's former nominees, suggested the exact opposite as his party looks to regain the White House.
"I think Republicans are and should be the party of the 47%," he said....
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
He rocks. CRUZ!!!
Vet,
It has been a pleasure chatting it up with a veteran and a great American patriot as yourself.
I find myself being called a troll by a supposed “large” group I’ve been told by some person on this board, his name wasn’t important enough for me to remember. Anyway, whatever. If I get booted, keep up the good fight.
It is not a good way to maintain a GREAT board like FR buy kicking anyone who disagrees with one or two things off. I donate regularly and am a proud conservative. But if it happens, so be it.
Thanks for your service.
Give the poor a reason to vote for you, not a reason to vote for someone else.
Much like Reagan spoke about the poor as victims of failed democrat policies who needed to be freed from poverty.
He only has to convince a small percent to join the land of the free. Not to be confused with “free” stuff.
Romney made two key mistakes. The “47%” comment was one of them, and every future presidential campaigner should learn from that episode that there are NO PRIVATE SPEECHES when you are campaigning. If you wouldn’t say it on nationwide television, don’t say it at all.
The other mistake was not immediately pouncing on Candy Crowley when she lied to help Obama during the debate. He should have held firm, and demanded that Crowley produce the transcript or retract her comment, or failing either, just walked off the stage.
Romney’s 47% comment was really stupid. He wrote off voters that may have swung his way and he signaled his donor base that the fight was already lost.
Not that I would have voted for a RINO cultist, but still.
Anybody that couldn’t see that Willard was a ringer for Zero were too stupid to vote.
“I cannot think of a statement in all of politics that I disagree with more strongly.”
I can...
“I think Romney is a good man”
I love ya TC. But Romney is an evil man.
I’m still trying to figure out what the big deal was with the commie hippies and that “47%” thing. When Romney talked about the “47%”, he was just stating a fact. That’s the problem with the commie piggies. They can’t handle the truth.
As much as I dispose him, he was right about that. People make it an issue because as you said, they have an aversion to reality. And that included the fragile flowers on the right that are too scared to face the truth of the statement.
DESPISE
I think you just said over 50% of the GOP is too stupid to vote. And sadly, I think you might be right. Not that it helps, but it is worse in the other party.
Romney never had a chance in heck from the get go, the base will NOT turn out for a RINO.
Plus, would you give money to the campaign of someone who just told you that 47% of the vote was locked in for his opponent, and that he had to win 98% of the remaining 53% to be successful???
It was one of the most condescending, judgmental, and stupidest things I've ever heard a candidate say.
I get that. However...Screw civil. Civil got us Bhoner, McConnel, Barry and the mess we are in.
Truth. Honesty. THAT is what we need. If those aren’t civil, so be it. Cruz will get more support calling a spade a spade than playing civility games because even half the dems are sick of stuff like that. He doesn’t play games elsewhere and I don’t believe he should here. He’s a man of faith, he looks to God for guidance. God is pretty clear on that stuff.
Over 150 million Americans are in a family that receives some kind of check from the Federal Government - whether “means tested” or outright entitlement.
The vast majority of those people will never vote to change that.
The truth, more than lies, will make people angry.
Really? I get a check every month for disabilities incurred in the service of this country and I have never, in my memory, voted for a Democrat.
I don’t know about it being necessarily worse. For starters, there aren’t any Republicans pretending to be Democrats in the opposition (certainly not any who could get anywhere near the nomination — the GOP establishment is very happy to put up RINOs who consistently lose. They’re very comfortable having Democrat Presidents). The Dems haven’t nominated a non-liberal candidate for President since 1924 (John Davis of WV). The left went hysterical that year that they didn’t have “one of theirs” to vote for on either party ticket (ultimately, they went with ultraleftist Republican Sen. Bob La Follette running on the Progressive ticket).
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.